A while back, I entered a composition competition. Shortly after, one the judges, who I personally know, went on a slight rant on social media about the use of Papyrus as a title font.
The argument was that it’s kitschy, overused, and communicates that the music within is “less than.”
It also happens to be the font that I use for my titles.
Before you judge me, hear me out.
I am aware that there is a level of disgust (from some people) about the use of Papyrus.
They complain about the movie Avatar using this font – a movie that came out over fifteen years ago. A decade-and-a-half is a long time for someone to hold onto a hang-up about a font.
At the same time, I have received compliments about my font.
But, yesterday, in a meeting I was warned by another composer that my font gets mixed reviews.
It’s divisive, for sure.
Knowing this, I have looked for another font – multiple times. But I have not found another I like that is available across all the platforms I use. Sure, I could create something that I then have to graphically insert into my scores.
But why should I do that to please other people?
The judge I mentioned above said something about Papyrus being fake hieroglyphics. But he was wrong. Papyrus was the material hieroglyphs were written on. This is important, as I will explain.
I chose Papyrus because it best communicates me and my music. It communicates something ancient and natural.
Most of my music is inspired by extra-musical sources, primarily related to my (ancient) faith, literature, and the natural world. My brand archetype is “philosopher”, and I approach life through a metanarrative lens.
My piece, Eidolons, takes its title from an ancient Greek word. My piece Arethusa is about a story from ancient Greece. My piece From the Four Winds draws its name from a phrase in the Bible. My piece Mountain Heartleaf is inspired by a species of wild ginger. These are just a few examples.
Papyrus is a perfect fit.
We are told to be our authentic selves. Then, we are told, “Well, don’t be that way.” That way is kitschy, uncool, overused and outdated.
Let me ask you a few things.
- Have you ever listened to and enjoyed a piece of music, only to wonder whether or not the publisher of the score used a good font?
- Have you truly judged a score by its cover? (If so, why? Did you not look at it or listen to the music?)
- Have you examined other scores, especially choral works? Do you realize how boring most covers are?
- Have you looked around at book covers and noticed how overused many covers are, especially for non-fiction titles?
- What is the music really about? How the cover looks, or how it sounds?
When I see the titles of other scores, they feel bland to me. They don’t call to me. That doesn’t mean I won’t examine the score or listen to the music. However, I personally like to make my score covers a little more decorative by using the Papyrus font with some shadow.
If that turns someone off, I can’t control that. If they see my cover as lame and assume that the music contained within is also lame, without giving it a look or listen, then they are not “my people.”
But my guess is that some will like my font and understand it communicates that my music connects to something beyond ourselves.
I have given this a lot of thought, and despite the insecurity I sometimes feel when people warn against the use of Papyrus, I’m going to keep it.
I’m going to be myself.
And, you know what? It hasn’t hurt me too much.
In my meeting yesterday, I was told that I needed to highlight more of the good stuff buried in my CV, in particular the pieces that have been performed in peer-reviewed settings.
Like Eidolons, which was recently performed at the UNK New Music Festival.
My pieces have been performed in peer-reviewed contexts several times.
And I get sales on JW Pepper.
It seems the title font is not a problem, after all.