“Disco Sucks!”
Steve Dahl
Not a sentiment I agree with at all, but a noteworthy use of Shatter nonetheless!
On July 12, 1979, Chicago’s Comiskey Park, in an attempt to reinvigorate ticket sales, offered a special promotion with early shock jock Steve Dahl. The promotion? Bring a disco record for discounted admission and Dahl will explode the collected vinyl after the first game. The result? Thousands rushing onto the field, property damage, riot police, the forfeit of the second game, and what has come to be seen as the key event that heralded the decline of disco’s heyday: Disco Demolition Night.
Who exactly is responsible for this use of Shatter has been hard to determine. In all the photos I’ve seen of Mr. Dahl in this shirt the legibility of the copyright credit has been poor. From the clearest photo I’ve come across (found in the book Disco Demolition: The Night Disco Died) the credit appears to read “squealer est.”
A banner at Comiskey Park the night of the promotion/demolition
Another angle of the same banner. This still is taken from the American Experience episode “The War on Disco.”
19 Comments on ““Disco Sucks!””
Most likely “squealer ent.”, as in entertainment, no? [Illinois’ Secretary of State has a business name search, but this no longer appears.]
That’s what I originally read it as, but it really does look like “est.” in the Disco Demolition book. I even consulted with several other people to see what they could make out, and the consensus seemed to be “est.”
With a humorous name like “squealer” (if I’m even reading that part right) I have a feeling it might be closely associated with Dahl.
I think Shatter was based on a skewed Helvetica Medium, rather than Helvetica Bold – the classic Medium weight from Haas that was made famous by Letraset and others, very often used for signage, and which didn’t survive when D. Stempel and Linotype transitioned Helvetica to the Linotype, Linofilm and then digital. This Medium weight was finally revived digitally by Christian Schwartz’s Neue Haas Grotesk, around 2010. I made a post about it on Instagram.
Nice post, thanks, Fernando. I agree and have updated the bio for Shatter.
In German, Helvetica Medium was known as Halbfette Helvetica. The literal translation of halbfett is semibold, but in practice it means (or meant) bold. Whereas fett (“fat”) is really more of an extrabold.
Linotype’s Helvetica Bold is closer to the original foundry version’s Medium than to its Bold (a.k.a. Fette Helvetica – which was worked into Helvetica Black in the Linofilm version). But you’re spot on: the original Medium, for many the most beautiful and emblematic cut, got lost in transition.
As always, the closer one looks, the more complicated it gets: the 1987 LinoTypeCollection catalog doesn’t only show Helvetica bold (halbfett), but also a Helvetica bold No. 2 (with tighter spacing) and a Helvetica Catalogue bold (with looser spacing). And then there’s Helvetica heavy (dreiviertelfett), which sits between the bold and the black …
Hey Florian,
Very cool, I’ve come across the ‘halbfett’ weight description a few times. It does look like a Semibold indeed, more than a Medium. Also great to know Linotype was still trying it during the late eighties. I think it was when Desktop Publishing kicked in, that perhaps the weight started to get lost — as apparently it was already discarded for more typesetting-oriented purposes early on, when Helvetica was adjusted for the Linotype and Linofilm. Also perhaps the sudden substitution of more display-oriented technologies, which were still using Helvetica Medium largely, contributed to its gradual vanishing, specially from digital font menus. It is common to see Helvetica Medium still in use in the late eighties and early nineties, it becomes rarer as long as Desktop Publishing dominates the graphic world.
Florian,
I took a closer look at the images you linked in your comment. The sample you shared from Halbfette Helvetica (which I believe comes from the Schriftenkartei – Typeface Index) appears slightly heavier than the “original” Medium I was referring to, which led me to check my Schriften – Printing Types catalogue from D. Stempel (red-and-black cover with a large squared S, landscape format). There, the text sizes of Helvetica halbfett are noticeably much darker than the larger display sizes of the same weight, matching the sample you shared. The display sizes, however, retain the “original” look I was referring to—closer to what we see in Letraset specimens and other signage catalogues.
Interestingly, these smaller text sizes of Helvetica halbfett (or Halbfette Helvetica) indeed closely resemble the first digital Helvetica Bold—the one bundled with every Mac to this day, credited to Linotype in 1981. A good example is the spur of the a, which in the digital version features a small chamfer. This chamfered cut doesn’t appear in Stempel’s halbfett, but there’s a noticeable accumulation of weight in that area (which doesn’t occur in the display sizes).
It seems the original Helvetica halbfett had significant differences across optical sizes, which likely caused the confusion. It was probably difficult to determine what should officially be called Medium, Semibold or Bold, specially as text typesetting technology evolved. When Helvetica Neue was designed, they introduced a new “65 Medium” based on the lighter designs, this time with a tail on the a, adding to the confusion even further.
Poor Helvetica… its story is more obscure than commonly believed or portrayed out there… but I guess that goes for many, if not all, typefaces that transitioned across technologies.
Absolutely, that’s a good point; size is a crucial factor.
I’m not aware of a scanned specimen that shows the range of sizes in close detail, but despite its limited size, this photo by Indra already confirms this basic fact: counters in the large sizes are clearly larger.
Correct, the Halbfette Helvetica scan I linked to is from the Schriftenkartei. Its size is neither tiny nor large – if I’m not mistaken, it’s the 28pt.
When Linotype made their Helvetica Bold adaptation for machine typesetting, they based it on a smaller size of the halbfett. Makes sense: the Linotype machine is made for text sizes. They exaggerated the a’s tail, probably so that it survives when printed in smaller sizes and adverse conditions, like on newsprint. (Linotype’s Helvetica Bold also suffers from other compromises, like crammed proportions to match those of the Regular, but that’s another topic.) The exaggerated tail only really became a problem when this version was chosen as the basis for later scalable formats, including the digital version: it’s ungainly in larger sizes.
When Letraset made their Helvetica Medium adaptation for dry transfer lettering, they based it on a large size of the halbfett. Makes sense, too: Letraset is primarily used for display purposes.
I made an animation that shows three versions, brought to the same x-height:
1. The heavy one (with the slightly rough contours) is a medium size of the foundry version, taken from the Schriftenkartei index card scan.
2. The lightest one with the largest counters and the pointed a tail is an unspecified large size of the foundry version, scanned from Lettera 2 (second edition).
3. For comparison, Linotype’s digital Helvetica Bold, with the much narrower a and the unfortunate tail. BTW, it appears to be identical to the version shown in the 1987 LinoTypeCollection catalog.
The differences are striking. In addition to weight, also observe counter shape, descender length, aperture, and even the angle of the lower terminals in c.
What you’re longing for is not a forgotten weight, but rathar a specific size (range) of the foundry version’s halbfett.
That’s not quite accurate. URW’s Nimbus Sans came first. It was developed in four versions distinguished by letters: T (Text), D (Display), P (Poster), and L. The latter was designed to match Linotype’s PostScript version of Helvetica. Some say the L stands for “Laser” (as in laser printer), but maybe it’s for “Linotype”?
1. Nimbus Sans P Bold is based on a large size of Helvetica halbfett (foundry version)
2. Nimbus Sans D Bold is virtually identical to Nimbus Sans P Bold, except for the less tight spacing.
3. Nimbus Sans T Bold is based on a smaller size of Helvetica halbfett (foundry version).
4. Nimbus Sans L Bold is based on Linotype’s Helvetica Bold.
Ian, apologies for hijacking your Shatter post with these Helvetica musings – I hope you don’t mind!
Yes, I am with you on that — the “Helvetica Medium” I was referring to, the one made famous for signage by Letraset/Letrafilm, among many other dry transfer and phototype providers during the 70s/80s, probably comes from the display sizes of Helvetica halbfett, rather than being an isolated lost weight from the foundry version as I wrote. It was indeed a lost design though, and it is truly a very strong sign of pre-digital design when spotted out in the wild — specially in old signage systems, old corporate IDs and also book covers. I don’t think Nimbus Sans was much used for that, neither Christian’s Neue Haas Grotesk Medium has been used with that vitality these days.
I am attaching here images from the referred Schriften Type catalog from D Stempel, where you see more of a relation of Helvetica halbfett to the weight balance of the signage-famous Helvetica Medium in the 60 and 72 pt sizes, third image.
Linotype Helvetica Bold digital is indeed a bit of a disaster. It seems also to be the basis of Swiss 721 by Bitstream, among others. I had never look into Nimbus Sans in detail and thought it was also an offshoot of that version. From your animation, it shows that perhaps it doesn’t relate that much to the thicker versions of the Halbfette, although the accumulation of weight on the spur occurs and there’s a weight similarity. It seems the design was very altered and made squarer, possibly to fit in some new typesetting environment. I just remembered that image that Indra shared somewhere (I can’t recall where), but it also shows that the chamfer was applied before digital by Linotype.
To me, the problem is also that this Linotype version with the chamfer on the a has possibly become the most popular Helvetica. It’s absolutely everywhere, probably because it’s the easiest one to find on Macs. Most people, including designers, don’t even notice how bad it looks. Helvetica Neue is also common, but usually used better.
Thanks for sharing these specimen photos, Fernando. Very nice to have this conversation! :)
Nimbus Sans started out as a Helvetica for sign making software. From a comment by Albert-Jan Pool, who was Type Director at URW in the early 1990s:
In his 2015 company history of URW, long-time managing director Peter Rosenfeld writes (my translation):
He also reveals that the fonts were mainly digitized from Berthold Staromat templates (E3).
Peter W. Schulz, one of the partners of URW, mentions that Signus had offices in Vienna, Paris, London, Barcelona, Dresden, and Boston, among others.
I don’t know when exactly Nimbus Sans D Bold was made. My PostScript copy is from 1994.
Here’s a visual comparison of a larger size of Helvetica halbfett (foundry version as reproduced in Lettera 2, 2nd edition), exact size unknown) to Nimbus Sans D Bold:
URW’s digitization is a smidgen lighter, corners of joints are sharper (because of the absence of ink gain), and the a tail is cut more diagonally on the inner side. Apart from that, it comes pretty close.
For reference, here’s the same comparison with Neue Haas Grotesk Display 65 Medium:
In Christian Schwartz’s interpretation, the belly of a is more compact and the descender longer – at least when compared to this specific size.
I’d say that Nimbus Sans’s bad rep in the type world for the most part stems from its dubiously generic name … which was chosen because URW had difficulties in licensing the original name. In terms of design and technical quality, there’s nothing wrong with it. It’s certainly better than the Linotype “disaster”, as you rightly say.
By now, there’s certainly no shortage of Helvetica interpretations. In addition to NHG, Antique Legacy and Haas Recast are two more versions that might be of interest to the admirer of “Helvetica Display Medium”.
The source of the “lousy phototype Helvetica” is Indra’s Flickr.
Nice one, Florian! I had no idea Nimbus Sans was originally made for Signus and had that signage-related background. Could URW have been the first to popularize the use of display cuts of the halbfett for signage, with other companies following the trend? Also I think URW had a Nimbus Roman, which was based on Times New Roman, right? It also seems to be from 1994.
The name Helvetica Medium was widely used though—not just in Letraset’s catalogs but also by several smaller providers of photofonts and dry-transfer sheets in the ’70s/'80s. I also keep seeing it specified in classic corporate identity manuals under that name; just earlier today, I spotted it specified in the NASA Graphic Standards Manual reprint.
And thanks for the reminder that Indra’s image came from Flickr! I keep losing track of things I come across. I also hope this conversation isn’t spoiling the Shatter in use topic, as you said—this is all relevant to its origins in a way! 🙂
*I meant the digital version of Nimbus Roman… saw that the original dates back to 1982.
Florian said: Some say the L stands for “Laser” (as in laser printer), but maybe it’s for “Linotype”?
The L in URW font names stands for LaserWriter. URW had made their clone-versions of the so-called “LaserWriter 35” fonts. These were the first 35 PostScript fonts that were shipped with Apple’s LaserWriter II. These included (lousy) versions of Helvetica (regular, bold, italic and bold italic, as well as four corresponding condensed weights). Note that the italics were slanted versions of the roman. The outlines of the URW clones were better, but the metrics were identical (including the ß of the regular weight which had a left side bearing which was far too large). The meaning of the “L” in the URW font names is documented in the type specimen that came with URWs EuroWorks CDs: Peter Karow: URW EuroWorks – Latin Fonts for Europe.
Fernando said:
Dear Fernando, great to read about your fascination of the version of Helvetica you found. I’m afraid you’re drawing your conclusion a bit too early.
Yes, URW used materials produced with 2″ Berthold Staromat filmstrips to digitise many typefaces. This is the story often told by people having worked at URW, such as Peter Rosenfeld* and me**. The case of Helvetica is different though. According to what Peter Karow*** writes in the book Types best remembered / Types best forgotten by Robert Norton, URW digitised Helvetica for Stempel in 1977. Stempel was the Frankfurt company that had a type studio working on the Linotype type library. Stempel bought the Ikarus software to digitise their typefaces, but also commisioned URW to digitize several typefaces for them, such as Helvetica. URW launched the Signus software for signmaking in 1983, so “Nimbus” was not made originally for Signus. From font catalogues for Signus we can conclude that URW licensed Helvetica to their customers. So Stempel/Linotype must have allowed URW to do so, because notably Linotype was eager not to license their typefaces to any competitors. Signus was a popular software for signmaking from 1983 to ±1993, but it surely was not the only game in town. Yes, Signus may have had some influence, but Helvetica’s heyday, also in signage, were in the 1960s and 1970s.
Nimbus originally was the name of URW’s font rasterizer, a software with which one could produce high-quality bitmap fonts using Ikarus outlines with URW’s proprietary hinting technology. It was a competitor to Bitstream’s Speedo software and Agfa’s Intellifont. Nimbus came with fonts which were basically clones of Adobe’s first PostScript fonts. In the very beginning these were Nimbus Sans (Helvetica), Nimbus Roman (Times, based on Linotype’s version of Times New Roman), Nimbus Mono (Courier) and a Symbol font. Customers were companies such as manufacturers of laser printers and word processing software that did not want to license PostScript technology from Adobe. So that is (partly) why URW renamed their version of Helvetica into Nimbus Sans. Not sure if the Nimbus software and the corresponding set of outline data were already on the market in 1985, but the beginnings of fetching URW’s technology into a marketable font rasterizer for OEM customers may very well have started in that year.
According to what Peter Karow writes, URW sold about 400 single weights of typefaces as Ikarus data to Adobe. Helvetica was among them. The first Helvetica fonts issued by Adobe did not quite resemble URW’s data though. The outline quality was rather low and as part of Adobe’s strategy to quickly expand their library while maintaining high font quality they bought Ikarus data from URW. Shortly thereafter, Adobe decided to join forces with Linotype though. Linotype wanted to be backwards compatible with their own type library and Adobe gave in on that, so only a smaller part of the Ikarus-data from URW was actually used by Adobe. So I actually doubt if there has ever a been Helvetica in the Adobe/Linotype PostScript library that was based on URW outline data.
One more thing: Fernando, you say “I meant the digital version of Nimbus Roman… saw that the original dates back to 1982”. Where did you get that information?
* Peter Rosenfeld was a Marketing director at URW. He originally worked at the Hell company and Kiel. I first met him at ATypI 1985 in Kiel. This was shortly after he had started working at URW. Peter Rosenfeld founded URW++ with a few other former employees after URW filed for bankruptcy by the end of 1994.
** I got to know URW better when I worked in the type studio of Scangraphic near Hamburg from 1987 to 1991. We bought Ikarus outline data of over 900 single typefaces to expand the type library for our proprietary Scantext typesetting systems. In 1991 I switched to URW and was their type director until 1994.
*** Peter Karow was one of the owners of URW, he is the one who invented the Ikarus software for digitising, editing and producing digital typefaces, based on outline technology.
Here’s the image that Albert sent:
Thank you so much for taking the time to chime in here, Albert, and for clarifying things!
The confusion about Signus is my fault. Apparently I misread your comment on Flickr about Helvetica schmalhalbfett (Nimbus Sans Bold Condensed): you said that “it was amongst the first typefaces that were available on URW’s Signus” – but not that it was digitized for Signus. And of course it’s about a different style altogether – apologies.
Regarding the 1982 date for Nimbus Roman: this info is given on the Wikipedia page. The footnote there says it was cited from a page at urwpp.de (the original is gone, and the archived copy unfortunately doesn’t include the Designer/Year tab). Could it be the case that URW digitized Times in 1982, and later renamed it to Nimbus Roman (or derived Nimbus Roman from that data)?
In Kurze URW-Geschichte von 1972 bis heute (pdf, 2007), Peter Rosenfeld writes about the year 1988 that “URW develops Nimbus Renderer based on Passe for so-called PostScript clones” (my translation).
Side note: I don’t doubt Karow’s account of URW’s Helvetica digitization. But some of his statements should be taken with a grain of salt. For example, his characterization of Maxima as “another clone of Helvetica” is unfair, see this visual comparison – is any low-contrast sans a Helvetica clone?
I’m also curious to learn more about which elements of AG Buch were “merged” into Nimbus Sans. It’s not the diagonal terminals on glyphs such as S and c, nor the 2 derived from Akzidenz-Grotesk. As demonstrated above, Nimbus Sans is pretty directly based on Helvetica. Maybe he was referring to technical aspects of the production?
Hey Albert, thanks for tuning in and for all the amazing info you shared—always insightful and very much appreciated!
This isn’t so much a personal fascination with Helvetica or its design but rather something that has been on my mind for about 20 years. I started noticing the Medium/Halbfett weight in many places but couldn’t find it digitally anywhere. I wasn’t making any conclusions regarding Signus, —just speculating—about whether they might have played a role in popularizing the Halbfett for signage. But as you pointed out, there are many earlier examples of that usage in the 60s/70s.
What really piqued my curiosity was how the display cuts of the halbfett came to be widely known as ‘Helvetica Medium’ in the pre-digital era, especially outside the German-speaking world. This post has already gathered an incredible amount of information—so much of this is hard to find in everything written about Helvetica.
From Peter Karow’s Digital Typefaces. Description and Formats (Springer-Verlag, 1994):