Many thanks to everyone who entered designs for our logo competition and to those who voted.  Almost 25% of members took part, casting 541 votes in total.  Detailed results are here.  Three designs each attracted over 10% of the votes.  The overwhelming favourite, with 26.2%, was the existing logo.  So the existing logo wins and will continue as the Society’s emblem.  We remain grateful to Mrs Nancy Winters, who designed the logo in the 70’s.

Copies of the logo in various colours and formats are available here

The Competition Entries

Entry 1

Entry 2

Entry 3

Version without text:

Entry 4

Entry 5

Entry 6

Entry 7

Entry 8

Entry 9

Entry 10

Entry 11

Entry 12

Entry 13

Entry 14

Entry 15

Entry 16

Entry 17

Entry 18

Entry 19

Entry 20

Entry 21

Entry 22

Entry 23

Entry 24

Entry 25

Entry 26

Entry 27

Entry 28

Entry 29

Entry 30

A Pied Piper image like one of the following:

Other Suggestions

These suggestions arrived too late to be included in the poll. However, they will be considered by the committee and if you like either of them, please say so in a comment.

Late suggestion

Further late suggestion

Give your view

If you would like to make any comment about the logo competition you can add your comment below.

[yop_poll id=”2″]

Last updated 18 October 2013

124 Responses

  • I have read the comments with interest.

    I guess we are really not the people to ask about a new logo. Most people will stick with the status quo, if asked. The old and familiar is good for our comfort zones. And anyway the logo is not aimed at us. We know what SRP means, I hope.

    For me the issue is not about being modern or old-fashioned. It is about having a recognisable symbol that reproduces well in all media. Modern graphic design favours something big, bold, uncluttered and easily recognisable. It doesn’t even have to spell out the name. Think of BT, e.on etc. Our current logo becomes a smudge on my phone so is a bit pointless.

    Anything that attempts to depict a recorder is doomed to failure as the recorder is such a thin insturment and when the logo is shrunk looks like a mark on the paper, the beak is very distinctive though and I am suprised more designs didn’t make use of that.

    If saving money is the reason for not going with a new logo then maybe we should be seriously looking at ending all paper based communication, which must cost a fortune, and just sending out things electronically which is really cheap. That seems to be the logical conclusion to that discussion. Maybe not, but it is an idea worth exploring if money is the reason for retaining the current logo.

    Given that the recorder is probably the musical instrument that has been played by more people than any other in this country maybe we should be a bit forward thinking and have a look at our image and brand. We can always do with more members of any description.

  • There is no new design above that is anywhere near as beautiful and elegant as the original logo.

    Why is something detrimental just because its fashioning is considered to be “old”? Why should logos that are regarded as modern”, whatever that means, have more impact? Does anyone remember the fiasco with the Post Office and the expensive, pointless attempt to change its name to “Consignia”? (I know the society is not considering a name change, so no one need point that out.)

    Change will be expensive, whether, or not a graphic designer is employed. Here’s an innovative idea; if there is to be a new logo, those who want it and initiated the competition should get out their cheque books and cover the costs themselves (or are cheques too “old fashioned” these days?)!

  • I guess, being newer members, we’re not emotionally attached to any logo. It rather depends on what the Logo if “for”…
    If it is to promote a particular identity *outside* of the organisation (as the overwhelming majority of logos are designed to do), then go for something professional, clean and clear – #2 & #3 are the obvious choices.
    If, on the other hand, it’s to give the members a self-identity (a bit pointless, as the recorder is a pretty strong identity of its own, judging by many of the comments here), then sure, keep the old one.
    We voted for #3…

  • Please keep the old one. It is timeless, and won’t have to be changed yet again to suit another decade’s fashion whims.

  • 13 is my favourite – simple but distinctive. Also like 3 and 9. I am not a big fan of the existing logo and personally think it would be better to go with a completely new design rather than an updated version of the existing logo

  • The ‘further late suggestion’ might be a good compromise between those who think it doesn’t need changing and those (like me) who think the existing logo is too old-fashioned. Number 2 is too safe. I like 12 and 13. Let’s not have an image of someone playing an instrument which is not a recorder. Is there any budget for hiring a graphic designer, or is there one in the SRP who might advise? The website looks more modern than when I joined just a few years ago (when I didn’t consciously notice the logo), so maybe the logo on its own isn’t that critical. Are there other aspects of our image that could be developed? The Report of the 2020 Working Group doesn’t mention the word ‘logo’. (I haven’t read it all, but thank goodness for computer searching!) Even if you decide not to change the logo, it will still have been a useful exercise.

  • I think we should leave the Logo as it is (as entry 29), especially as not one of the other entries is any better or has any other advantage. What is the point of creating added expense by changing the logo to something that is less creative & artistic. What we have says it all!

    • I agree with everyone who is asking ‘why change?’. The current logo is distinctive and visually pleasing. It looks like a creative organisation, which is an appropriate image. The writing is elegant and a bit complex – like recorder music. We aren’t square and our logo shouldn’t be either!

  • I like No. 2 and the ‘further late suggestion’, which I think is a good reworking of the existing design.

  • I like the original but as I understand that greater clarity of the logo is required how about a look alike. I like number 29 or ‘A Further Late Suggestion.’

    This would remain an instantly recognisable logo.

  • the ‘late suggestion’ gives a very modern look and I would have voted for it BUT 1) it has a spelling mistake – it should be “players” not “player” and 2) there was no box for this on the voting line.

  • I really like the old one, which I’ve voted for, but if a change and extra clarity is needed, why not go on to the ‘further late suggestion’ which would gradually replace the old one without the need for throwing out still serviceable items carrying the logo?

  • I would prefer to keep the current logo which continues to provide a sense of identity and identification amongst the membership.

  • I agree that the current logo is very appealing, but was also taken with entry 8 because it included an image of a recorder which I think would be a very positive addition – as the quote goes ‘a picture speaks a thousand words’. Ideally I’d go for entry 29 with the addition of a recorder image in the upright ‘R’ and ‘P’ of SRP. Sorry I didn’t hear about the competition earlier, or I might have submitted this as an entry!

  • It is a pity that it is not possible to vote for “Further Late Suggestion” , The bold lettering produces a clarity which the present logo lacks, and the elegance of its design is very pleasing. Some of the other simpler designs are quite appealing but seem too utilitarian and characterless. This one gives the message and does so in an aesthetically eye-catching manner.

  • No. 2 because it is simple, easy to read and should shrink well, as required for all sorts of electronic media.

  • I don’t see there is a need for change. Furthermore, changing the logo could cause confusion as although the old logo can be obliterated in the virtual world of the internet, you would come across a mixture of both old and new logos on hard copies in the ‘real world’ for a long time to come.

    I don’t want to be provocative, but is it not likely that the majority of people who come across the SRP in logo or other form are already interested recorder players and if they have a restricted view of the wide range of music styles open to them it isn’t just because of the logo.

    If there has to be change for the sake of change I would go for the plain simplicity of 12 – no point in going for something equally fancy but different.

  • Further late entry gets my vote. I’ve always admired the existing logo but this one seems to preserve its quality whilst simplifying it.

  • Why change?
    I like the existing logo. It is visually clear, compact and doesn’t look like anybody else’s logo that I know.
    Some of the new ones are OK but none is outstanding.
    Elegant calligraphy is pretty much timeless. It’s not tied to any particular historical period. Rather like the recorder…

  • I like the second of the two later entries, preferably the first one, where the letters are straight up, rather that
    slightly tilted.

  • I think the late entry at the end is best as it keeps the existing logo which is well known and the writing is kind of “old fashioned” so early music /baroque sort of goes well with this. Also there is a huge danger that when you loose a successful logo you loose the connections. Why change success just for the sake of it.

    • I agree with this. If you really are intent on changing, try, at least, not to alienate such a huge proportion of the membership…

  • Leave well alone. The existing logo is elegant. I like it. This move seems to me to be a case of change for change’s sake.

  • Although some of the more artistic logos were enjoyable to look at, I think that as the logo is an important item of information, it should be a clearly defined symbol, one which can be read immediately. The original logo fits this criteria. I chose both 9 and 29 so that the SRP logo still signals to the viewer that recorder music has a long tradition, one which gives it prestige and one which therefore overrides the non-musical view that recorder playing is only for schools.

  • I do not see much necessity to change, the current one is very nice. However I think the last one named ‘another suggestion’ is marginally better because it does look like a sticker and is clearer.

  • Not a lot of evidence of good design in the selection. I have never much liked the current one but don’t think we should change for the sake of appearing “modern”. If we have to, 21 is clear and uncluttered and says all that is required.

  • I agree with a lot of the above comments in that the existing logo no. 29 is just fine though maybe, if we are trying to reach a wider audience, a more up to date version, like the late suggestion (with an ‘s’ on ‘player’) would be acceptable, perhaps with a red background.

  • I also agree with those supporting the existing logo and can find no fault with it, I do not believe we need change for change’s sake!

  • We need to bear in mind why we have a logo at all – if it’s just to help members recognise SRP materials, then yes, the current one looks attractive and balanced. If the purpose of the logo is to promote ourselves to outsiders, it needs to be clear, uncluttered, unambiguous, and (ideally) to represent the sort of organisation we want to be seen as. It must include our full name, easily readable – we’ll never be famous enough to be recognised from just our initials or a graphic.

    IMHO, the recorder is not a sufficiently distinctive shape (especially to non-players), a treble clef could apply to any music group (and, by the way, more and more of us are playing from the bass clef these days) and some of the fancier lettering styles suggest an organisation with a special focus on the medieval period (not my impression of what the SRP is actually like).

    My choice would be entry 2 or 3.

  • I like 13 as a clear and classy looking logo. I also like 8 – it looks like “I love SRP”. It doesn’t spell out the name, but that didn’t worry the ABRSM when they changed their logo a few years back! I’d be quite happy if the logo stayed the same, though.

  • I don’t see what is wrong with the old logo, I don’t think any of the present ones are superior.

  • To give the general public a clearer idea of what a Recorder is I vote for No 9, if we must change!!

    • I would prefer to keep our existing logo, but if we have to change I would vote for No22 (elegant and unfussy) or the late entry

  • I thought I would have 1st and 2nd preferences.
    1st – 29
    2nd – a mixture of 21 and 22 – more spaced out ‘SRP’ with the ‘fancier’ lettering

  • I also do not see the need for change but I have selected my choices as No.21 or No.27 both clear and fresh looking.

  • The submissions demonstrate how difficult it is to design a logo that is elegant, tells you what it represents and is easy to print in different sizes. 29 does all of that. Why change just for the sake of it?

  • I would prefer to keep the existing logo.
    I see no reason for a change and the current logo is on many articles including pullovers and ties as well as paperwork.

  • Like some others, I like the existing logo very much. But have chosen 13 as my alternative if we have to have one.

  • I have a surfeit of choices!

    How about my Pied Piper from my collection of cards: “I can’t be serious!”

  • I prefer the original one (29), but No.9 is quite neat. The later entry seems to have an s missing.

  • I see no reason to change from the existing one (No.29). We should not change for change sake. I do like 13, but not as an alternative.

    No 29 has served me well for 30 years and would not like to see it changed

  • I like nrs 1 and 13, but my vote goes to nr 8, as it’s simple, attractive and clear. Reading everyone’s comments though, I wonder if you should just stick with the current logo as the majority seem to prefer that.

  • I prefer 29 (the present logo) to any of the others. So I have voted for 29 and 2. Logo no.2 is the best of the new ideas sent in. The main reason, I gather, for changing the logo is that it will be easier to reproduce it in all the forms of communication now used to publicise the Society. I cannot see how any of the suggested designs would be better in this respect so it would be a waste of our money to replace the existing one.

  • I still don’t know why we want to change the present clear and stylish logo at all.
    If we have to do it I would go for 25 which is clear or the “another suggestion” which would make a good lapel pin but it has a typo.
    Overall, having looked at all of them several times, I think 29 has the most style, is clear and relatively simple to produce in a variety of mediums so keep it!

  • Why the change? I agree there’s no point in change for the sake of it, so is it worth the expense? The additional one (do we call it 31?) is quite nice otherwise 2 or 12, which both have the virtues of simplicity and clarity.

  • I like no. 9: I’m not familiar with the EFDS logo, but I think this is neat, clean, clear, uncomplicated, says what is needed and could be reproduced as a lapel badge or as a small sticker for use on all sorts of things.

  • I voted for number 2 – nice and clean. However, I really like the one that arrived too late (as long as the missing ‘s’ is inserted) because that would also be clean-looking and modern, while reflecting the design (if not the pretty calligraphy) of the existing logo. I don’t think we necessarily have to stick with “old-fashioned”; not all the music we play is old!

  • We definitely need a new logo. The old one looks old fashioned and we don’t all like or play early music. We need to get the message out that we are about recorder music in general and a modern organisation, not one stuck 40 years ago!

  • I like 14, modern, clean and the fact there is no full name gives people an opening gambit to talk about the Society.

    • Our present logo (29)continues to serve us well.

      With two votes each, is it first past the post or could the second choices be added up and out vote members first choice?

    • Caroline

      There isn’t a first or second choice, I’m afraid – your two votes count equally. I know this isn’t ideal but I couldn’t find a good way of setting up the poll with a first and second choice. Sorry!

    • I am really concerned about this. As far as I can see from the comments I have read, most people would like to keep the old logo but have used their second vote for an alternative ‘if we really must change’. If both votes are counted equally then the poll may not represent the wishes of our members.

  • I really like the original design and see absolutely no reason to change it. Number 8 is quite striking but not as good as 29. I like ‘old-fashioned’. That’s why I choose to play early music.

  • Who said we needed a new logo? Has someone complained? It takes ages for people to get used to a new one. If it ain’t broke – don’t fix it. Spend the money on something else.

  • Having scrolled through all the entries, the current one stands out a mile, and not just through familiarity. I agree with all the comments about it having a classic calligraphy: if you do think that it needs to be changed, please don’t pick one with a “Comic Sans” or “Primary Infant Script” font! Also, No. 22 has clean lines.

  • We all talk about ‘SRP’ but the full name is The Society of Recorder Players. Several of the designs omit ‘The’ which I think should be included.

  • I really like the design in entry no. 13, otherwise I’d stick with the existing one, unless there’s a lot of enthusiasm for modernising to the ‘another suggestion’.

  • I want us to keep the current logo. I think it is elegant and has not been equalled by any of the entries.

  • When chosen, could you reproduce the logo as a sheet of self adhesive stickers? I like to nail my colours to the mast and often share my music with recorder players who are not members and do not know the SRP and its work very well. I would of course make it clear that the music was mine and not that of the Society.

  • I’m not quite sure why the logo needs to be changed, it is a good design. The new designs on offer are quite crude and don’t represent any real improvement. Is it change just for the sake of it?

  • I like the simplicity of 2 and 3. The late contender is interesting too. it looks like the end of a recorder but the colour puts me off.

  • Definitely prefer the old one -as do the majority of my local branch. Why change it? If it is for ‘technical’ reasons, surely they can be overcome? Failing that, the ‘late submission’ is the closest to the original and would at least be recognised by members. As Howard said, so many of the others look like banks or some other ‘corporate’ image…

  • I’m afraid I can’t work up any enthusiasm for any of the contenders. Too many of them look like something you would see outside a bank, or adorning a packet of tea or a tin of cocoa. The current one is at least distinctive, and has some (limited) brand recognition.

    Organisations that change their brand usually spend large amounts of money promoting the new one to ensure brand recognition. Can the SRP afford to do this?

    • No need to spend money on getting the new logo recognised.
      I like the extra late entry which is close enough to the old one but has a bit of flare too.

  • I agree completely with Anthony Hall – changing the logo would cost money that could be spent elsewhere. I find the present logo well designed & very attractive.

  • I like 3 and 13 best but I’m not sure they are sufficiently modern or inventive enough to replace the existing logo. Both would work well in publications and on a website. 13 is neat and attractive though is more generally musical, not obviously recorder-linked pictorially.

  • I flicked up and down the options several times and always returned to number 2. I find it perfectly clear, unfussy, and civilized. Go 2 !

  • If you must change the present logo {no. 29 ) which is the one I prefer ,then I vote for the simplicity and clarity of no. 2

  • I agree with Steve Marshall. It’s clear from the comments and the vote at the Festival that most people would prefer not to change. I haven’t seen a convincing argument against the existing logo. It’s true that there are some debased versions still around but that problem has been addressed and the copies available on the website work perfectly well in any medium.
    The only criticism I have seen of the existing logo is that it is “old fashioned”: well perhaps it is, but then so is the music of J. S. Bach (indeed it was called old fashioned even during his lifetime). Old fashioned or not, the logo is a fine piece of calligraphy and I can’t see the point in replacing it with a simplified, “modern”, but far less beautiful typeface.
    I would rather the committee spent its time on things that mattered to the members rather than spending time and possibly money on something like this which seems to me completely irrelevant to what the Society should be doing.

  • The new logo needs to be really clear, easily reproducible and with a modern appearance. I really like number 8 but it needs wording because if you just type in SRP on to the internet you get all kinds of other societies come up!

  • I am not at all sure that a new logo is required, and especially not if it is going to cost us money. I have heard a lot of comments that people like the existing logo, and their opinions should be respected. In such situations it is all too common to choose between the options that represent change, while ignoring a large number of people who prefer the status quo.

  • I love the beautiful calligraphy of the existing logo and would be sorry to see it go. However, if change must happen, then my vote goes to number two – in a pleasingly clear, unfussy font, it incorporates the full name as well as the initials; it would be easy to reproduce in any size or colour and could be used for stickers, badges, etc. It still wouldn’t look as good as the old one on the website though!

    By the way, the late suggestion has a typo (“The Society of Recorder Player”).

    • Sorry, I did it in rather a hurry. Not an excuse I know but it struck me that as there were a lot of folk favouring the original maybe a modern take on it might appeal.

  • I liked 2,13,15. I think it’s important that the logo is legible, shows the full title of the organisation, looks sophisticated, and as others have commented, doesn’t reinforce negative stereotypes.

  • I agree with Marte Raymond. If we can’t get a decent recorder image, then entries 2, 3 and “Another Suggestion” seem the best.

  • I liked the old logo (no. 29) but the additional late entry would be a very good compromise – the old one modernised and brought up to date.

    • I like 13 too but it’s that or the original. Like others have said so many members in rehearsals have said “Why change it?”. The ‘need’ to update is understandable in terms of graphic art branding but the wood-cut craft-like quality of the original still seems so in keeping with the instruments and the music we play. The merits of the 13 are that it’s polished, clear and direct and looks like it would date less than some of the others with its art deco overtones. Not so keen on the straight update of the current logo, though, it just looks like fiddling with the font.

  • I liked the old one!
    Btw, no. 9 looks very much like the English Folk Song and Dance Society logo (unless they have changed it).

  • I’m sorry that some people have been having problems leaving a comment. I think I have tracked down and fixed the problem. Please do let me know at webeditatsrpdotorgdotuk if you do still have trouble.

  • I think the logo should include the complete name of the society. “SRP” will not mean much to outsiders. Entering the letters in a search engine revealed such diverse entries as Salt River Project, Secure Remote Password and Society for Research in Psychotherapy. I did not find Societry of Recorder Players in the first several pages. The logo needs to be clear and stand out well when printed. If it includes a representation of a recorder, that should be clear. I found some rather abstract. Entry numbers 3, 9 & 29 were the ones that impressed me most.

  • I liked many of the entries, the ones I chose were completely different styles, one quite modern, the other more traditional

  • We need to have something unfussy and not twee, and not likely to reinforce any negative stereotypes about the seriousness of the instrument.

  • If you want the logo to have impact then it needs to be either very striking in shape, or un-fussy, I think. Aesthetically a lot of the examples given don’t do it for me at all – either muddled, or too complicated. Whilst the current logo looks complex, it’s visually balanced and does attract attention, a fine example of good calligraphy. Using images of recorders could work, but I’d not advise isolating the double-holes end of the instrument to do this, because the non-recorder player won’t be able to identify the instrument from that, and the problem with having an image which looks most like the school plastic model is that it will tend to go straight to that prejudice so many have against the instrument in the first place, instead of drawing people in. I like the idea of a logo implying some sophisication and “quality”, to lead people away from that idea that a recorder is an ‘orrible squeaky thing which schools use to torture parents as revenge for having to teach their kids…..

  • Some interesting ideas, but most are either not clear enough, or too old-fashioned IMHO. Tricky. It needs to be multifunctional, too, so I think that clarity for printing, and in many different sizes, is important.

  • There are many fine entries, but I don’t think it is fair that members who attended the festival are allowed to vote twice !

    • Ian, just to be clear: votes at the festival won’t be included in the new poll, so people aren’t “voting twice” in the sense of getting twice as many votes. Of course they do have the opportunity to change their minds.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *