Dream Theater self titled album discussion - [SPOILER FREE DISCUSSION ONLY]

[noxon]

Seriously, you're focusing on a small section of a two-page picture, and you're not even seeing it in the context of the booklet itself and how the pictures work together.

[robwebster]

Jesus H, you people are really picky. I'm sure anyone could find a fault in anything if you look for it hard enough. Sure, it might be a bit sloppy but I'm sure hes a busy guy. Also DT must appreciate his work enough to keep working with him for nearly a decade.

Actually, I don't think we're really picky. Syme, nowadays, has become extremely lazy artist which makes me wonder why DT keep choosing him. The guy uses fairly common stock images, and sometimes he even shares 'em (Remember ADTOE and Circus Maximus?)

It's not just you who does this (far from it!) so this isn't aimed at you specifically, any more than anyone else. I'm also not defending Hugh Syme, (cos I think he's been fairly slipshod right from Octavarium, and sweet lord am I ready for a break,) but I think it's a little rich to berate him using an example that quite neatly demonstrates that stock images are by no means a Syme-specific thing. Pretty much every digital artist uses them, and it's entirely routine. Mattias Noren didn't get the unicyclist to pose like that. I'm not sure how everyone manages to get themselves in such a tizz about this.

More digital art in the prog metal genre --

Thomas Ewerhard didn't ship this guy out to some canyon in businesswear and get him to scratch his head a bit:


Very few of these shadows ever met:


This never happened:


I mean, fine to slag Syme off, but can we at least slag him off for his actual shortcomings? It feels a bit like we're moving the goalposts - "That picture is bad cos the stock image has been pasted in badly!" "This one isn't." "Well, that one's bad cos it uses a stock image!" If you want your album cover to be a man unicycling over the tail of a plane, as the tightrope frays, there are a lot of health and safety barriers that make such an image very difficult to stage. Yes, you might need to source something from the world's online databanks, and you may find yourself slightly limited by the number of faceless unicyclists available for your delectation. I think to berate Syme for having the audacity to use stock images kind of threatens to undermine any proper, valid points about his work.

ETA:

Seriously, you're focusing on a small section of a two-page picture, and you're not even seeing it in the context of the booklet itself and how the pictures work together.

I think the problem is that people are seeing it in the context of a booklet - and it's a booklet where angles are confusing, light bends round corners, and lens flares have had great big stonking lines bisecting them. On its own? Fine, unfortunate but ignorable. But it's the culmination of a few weeks of discontent.

[Onno]

I have no problem with Syme using stock images, I understand that completely. I have a problem with Syme making sloppy pasting mistakes on most of the artwork. The album cover cutoff was the worst, I'm glad that's been fixed. But even then, as an artist he shouldn't even made that mistake. It's just bloody lazy.

[Edson Wilton]

There's a watermark (a camera) close to the guitar's headstock?

[noxon]

https://p1.pichost.me/i/20/1434799.jpg

[robwebster]

Jesus Christ, those creepy-ass doll-heads!! They're BACK!!

Please don't let them end up on the bass drums, please don't let them end up on the bass drums...

I do like the vibe of the image, though. Watermark - I'd be astonished if that made it to the final product. If it does, eesh. If not, no problem.

[noxon]

Looks like it's there in the finished product too...

[robwebster]

...man.

[ariich]

While it's on the promo copies, it's possible the final versions actually sold are different.

Typical sloppy work from Syme, but thanks for posting the pics noxon, I think that shows pretty well how barely-noticeable it is in the actual booklet.

[ToT-147]

Returning to the name of this thread:

1. False Awakening Suite - Petrucci/Rudess
2. The Enemy Inside - LaBrie/Mangini/Myung/Petrucci/Rudess
3. The Looking Glass - LaBrie/Mangini/Myung/Petrucci/Rudess
4. Enigma Machine - Mangini/Myung/Petrucci/Rudess
5. The Bigger Picture - LaBrie/Mangini/Myung/Petrucci/Rudess
6. Behind the Veil - LaBrie/Mangini/Myung/Petrucci/Rudess
7. Surrender to Reason - LaBrie/Mangini/Myung/Petrucci/Rudess
8. Along For the Ride - Petrucci/Rudess
9. Illumination Theory - LaBrie/Mangini/Myung/Petrucci/Rudess

Basically everything is credited to everyone except Enigma Machine being credited to everyone except James and FAS and AFTR being credited to John P and Jordan.

IT HIT ME..

Maybe this is not even one of the reason why they self titled the album.. But, this is the first time the whole band, each of the members, participated in the composing...

Now I accept the name of the album.. Just now.. It's perfect...

[noxon]

ariich: promo copies do not have artwork at all. This is the finished product. The actual special edition.

[ariich]

ariich: promo copies do not have artwork at all. This is the finished product. The actual special edition.

Ah gotcha, shame but not surprising.

[Outcrier]

For anyone who doesn't want to comb through everything themselves:

1. False Awakening Suite - Petrucci/Rudess
2. The Enemy Inside - LaBrie/Mangini/Myung/Petrucci/Rudess
3. The Looking Glass - LaBrie/Mangini/Myung/Petrucci/Rudess
4. Enigma Machine - Mangini/Myung/Petrucci/Rudess
5. The Bigger Picture - LaBrie/Mangini/Myung/Petrucci/Rudess
6. Behind the Veil - LaBrie/Mangini/Myung/Petrucci/Rudess
7. Surrender to Reason - LaBrie/Mangini/Myung/Petrucci/Rudess
8. Along For the Ride - Petrucci/Rudess
9. Illumination Theory - LaBrie/Mangini/Myung/Petrucci/Rudess

Basically everything is credited to everyone except Enigma Machine being credited to everyone except James and FAS and AFTR being credited to John P and Jordan.

Lennon-Mccartney kind of thing uh?

[eviljust]

I've never payed THAT attention on the artworks. I usually look at them, judge them from my point of view, meaning I'm absolutely not an expert, but this is definitely disappointing.

[ZKX-2099]

There's a watermark (a camera) close to the guitar's headstock?

3 severed heads... Portnoy, Sherinian and Moore?

[ToT-147]

Just one it's severed.. and I read somewhere a hypothesis that they are JM, MP and JP.. being MP the one in the middle, the one who's cuted, as he is not in the band anymore..

[425]

... Or Syme was like "these doll heads would go nicely in this picture... and this one too!"

[noxon]

"that cat looks stupid, let's put in some dolls heads instead"

[aXygnus]

... Or Syme was like "these doll heads would go nicely in this picture... and this one too!"

It's the most likely hypothesis 

[Flacracker]

Lol? Syme actually left a clip art watermark in the finished artwork? Wow...

[The Fatal Tragedy]

Well folks. I guess Hugh Syme wants to get sued.

[Orthogonal]

Lol? Syme actually left a clip art watermark in the finished artwork? Wow...

I always felt the criticism of his work was a little overboard, but that really is sloppy. 

[Kotowboy]

Hugh Syme = lame.

[unklejman]

Well folks. I guess Hugh Syme wants to get sued.

My thoughts as well... except that stock photo samples with watermarks are not nearly high enough resolution to be used for print work... 

[Flacracker]

Well folks. I guess Hugh Syme wants to get sued.

My thoughts as well... except that stock photo samples with watermarks are not nearly high enough resolution to be used for print work... 

"Eh... Good enough." - Hugh Syme

[BlobVanDam]

Well folks. I guess Hugh Syme wants to get sued.

My thoughts as well... except that stock photo samples with watermarks are not nearly high enough resolution to be used for print work... 

The watermark appears to be for a site called depositphotos, and their preview images for similar guitar photos from a Google search are greater resolution than it is on the final artwork.
I haven't found this specific photo though.

The problem is not so much that a watermark was left in there (which while a little negligent is understandable given how barely visible it is), but the fact that a watermark should only appear on an image if it wasn't licensed legally, which would be a problem.
I'm not making any accusations, I just hope there's not an issue there.

[Zook]

I think it's time for a DTF Scavenger Hunt. Lets see if we can find more watermarks in past DT artwork by Syme.

[theseoafs]

Okay, I usually stick up for Syme, but this watermark thing is ridiculous.  There's no excuse for that.

[PetFish]

^^

I'm fine with stock photos and montages but these errors are absolutely inexcusable.

[noxon]

I don't see how it could be on there - the originating background image (which i posted earlier in this thread) doesn't have a watermark. and the other pictures i've seen on Depositphotos has the watermark -very- prominently displayed on the middle of the image, while on this one it seems to be absolutely hidden, not to mention being behind the guitar itself. I wonder if there's a possibily that this is intentional, as a "hidden commercial" per se.

[BlobVanDam]

I think that sounds pretty damn absurd.

Maybe we're thinking about it wrong. Maybe it's not from the guitar at all, but from the piano image, hence it being underneath the guitar?

[aprilethereal]

I don't see how it could be on there - the originating background image (which i posted earlier in this thread) doesn't have a watermark. and the other pictures i've seen on Depositphotos has the watermark -very- prominently displayed on the middle of the image, while on this one it seems to be absolutely hidden, not to mention being behind the guitar itself. I wonder if there's a possibily that this is intentional, as a "hidden commercial" per se.

I think the watermark is part of the guitar image, which makes it even more embarrassing and inexcusable that it's still there.

[Lowdz]

... Or Syme was like "these doll heads would go nicely in this picture... and this one too!"

Well, as I posted when the first pic appeared, he's used the doll heads before.

[noxon]

I think the watermark is part of the guitar image, which makes it even more embarrassing and inexcusable that it's still there.

Yeah, but look at this:    See how the watermark is very huge and prominent. And in front of the image. I've looked at the DT booklet image, and the watermark is -behind- the head of the guitar...

[hefdaddy42]

symelol