Why is DT sticking with Hugh Syme?

[Nick]

Syme used to be great. Now I find him, both with Rush and Dream Theater to be a big name who is lazy and bland. I frankly think either band could throw ideas out at fans and get a return of dozens of covers that would easily eclipse what he does nowadays.

[Perpetual Change]

Syme used to be great. Now I find him, both with Rush and Dream Theater to be a big name who is lazy and bland. I frankly think either band could throw ideas out at fans and get a return of dozens of covers that would easily eclipse what he does nowadays.

Pretty much proven to be true every time there's a "make an album cover for (upcoming dt album)" thread here

[rumborak]

Absolutely. I think that was the case for at least the last three albums, where fan art was better than the actual cover.

[7StringedBeast]

It might have something to do with the chart success they have received with the Syme albums.  Don't fix something if it ain't broke mentality.

I think Octavarium is their best album art out of all their albums.  But then everything else Syme has done is pretty bad.  The exception being the actual cover for Dream Theater.  I do like that cover.

[Bolsters]

I dunno, I am pretty sure in this age of Art By Photoshop you could probably take a magnifying glass and find every little artifact and thing you want to see as a mistake and call it shoddy artwork. I usually either don't see the OMG HUGE PROBLEMS people do with Syme's DT art, or I don't give a fuck if three pixels are out of whack. Sometimes I wonder if some of you here have any joy in your lives, all you do is look for the bad.

First of all, thanks for the sardonic condescending tone of your post and personal insult, it's exactly what this thread needs. Secondly, I have a really hard time imagining how someone could not think the mouse and bottle on BC&SL is more than "three pixels out of whack" and actually consider it a non-issue. It's painfully obvious, no magnifying glass necessary, and you can't make up any fanboy-esque excuse about hidden meanings to explain it away as being that way by choice. It is a mistake, an error, an oversight, 100%.

[Sycsa]

One of the lowest forms of forum arguing is when someone makes an assumption regarding the amount of joy one has in their life. 

[TheGreatPretender]

I dunno, I am pretty sure in this age of Art By Photoshop you could probably take a magnifying glass and find every little artifact and thing you want to see as a mistake and call it shoddy artwork. I usually either don't see the OMG HUGE PROBLEMS people do with Syme's DT art, or I don't give a fuck if three pixels are out of whack. Sometimes I wonder if some of you here have any joy in your lives, all you do is look for the bad.

I agree. I mean, if I REALLY wanted to waste my precious time and effort, I could probably look at dozens of modern album art and find tons of things wrong with them, but it wouldn't matter because they're just covers, and if there's a picture that sloppily overlaps with another or something else of the sort, it could easily be claimed as an "artistic choice", or a mistake, or whatever, but does the picture look good at a glance, and if the answer is yes, then who cares?
I personally don't think that the lack of a shadow on BCSL suddenly turned the imaged from a 'work of high art' into 'ugly and sloppy'. You either like the design or you don't, and that, I think, is all that matters.

[Lucien]

I think Hugh Syme should just show us the art months beforehand so we can nitpick and have him fix all the problems before the album is released 

[Bolsters]

I personally don't think that the lack of a shadow on BCSL suddenly turned the imaged from a 'work of high art' into 'ugly and sloppy'. You either like the design or you don't, and that, I think, is all that matters.

Maybe you don't, that's your perogarive. But to me, problems like the mouse and bottle do turn what I may have considered a "work of art" otherwise into something ugly and sloppy. I can look past some things, but this isn't a small issue to me. It's gigantic. It's not like I am criticising shadows for being a few degrees off of the correct angle or something equally nitpicky, there are literally no shadows at all. It's a newbie mistake at best, or an indication of laziness at worst. The design itself I have nothing against, I just don't like the incomplete appearance of it because of the missing shadows, and that's the only reason I can't appreciate the cover. This issue strips any appreciation I may have otherwise had out completely. I can not overlook it or forget about it, and I certainly can not excuse it.

[Zook]

I think Hugh Syme should just show us the art months beforehand so we can nitpick and have him fix all the problems before the album is released 

That's actually a great idea since he doesn't even check his work.

[Perpetual Change]

I think Hugh Syme should just show us the art months beforehand so we can nitpick and have him fix all the problems before the album is released 

Hasn't that happened twice already?

Octavarium - several issues fixed after initial unveiling
DT12 - infamous cut-off issue fixed

[Lucien]

I'm talking about all the art. Yes, I know on DT12 they released the album art, but none of the liner notes problems got fixed (visible watermarks in that one place).

[Perpetual Change]

Strange as it sounds, my issues with Syme's art have nothing to do with his laziness, usually.

Conceptually, I don't find his work very interesting. And his whole style just feels cold and soulless to me.

[TheGreatPretender]

Maybe you don't, that's your perogarive. But to me, problems like the mouse and bottle do turn what I may have considered a "work of art" otherwise into something ugly and sloppy. I can look past some things, but this isn't a small issue to me. It's gigantic. It's not like I am criticising shadows for being a few degrees off of the correct angle or something equally nitpicky, there are literally no shadows at all. It's a newbie mistake at best, or an indication of laziness at worst. The design itself I have nothing against, I just don't like the incomplete appearance of it because of the missing shadows, and that's the only reason I can't appreciate the cover. This issue strips any appreciation I may have otherwise had out completely. I can not overlook it or forget about it, and I certainly can not excuse it.

See, that, to me, seems WAY too extreme. I guess it's up to you how much you care about that sort of thing, but to me, it's just making mountains out of molehills.

[BlobVanDam]

I think Hugh Syme should just show us the art months beforehand so we can nitpick and have him fix all the problems before the album is released 

Hasn't that happened twice already?

Octavarium - several issues fixed after initial unveiling
DT12 - infamous cut-off issue fixed

The changes in the Octavarium cover likely had nothing to do with fans nitpicking, I'm certain that was never the final cover (and I thought that was widely accepted as fact). It didn't even have the hooks for the cables, and the bar didn't go all the way across. There is no way it was final, not even for all of the criticisms of Syme.
Same with SC, where they changed the font and colour after the initial unveiling. And I'm pretty sure they didn't change that one because people were complaining about a font choice.

Believe me, the wrong cover can very easily get used for lower priority stuff. Images get passed around to different people for various jobs, people use an image they assume is the right one without a second thought, because it looks 99% identical at a glance, and isn't noticeable unless you have both versions, so this easily happens.
I was sent 3 different versions of the BCASL cover, and the 2 different versions of the DT12 cover, all from official sources, and not in what would be chronological order either. It just depends on who you got it from, and when you got it, etc.

But the version that goes to print is always going to be the file directly from Syme, not from a loose image file floating around the office, so the majority of these mistakes have no chance of making it to print.

[Lucien]

I think Hugh Syme should just show us the art months beforehand so we can nitpick and have him fix all the problems before the album is released 

Hasn't that happened twice already?

Octavarium - several issues fixed after initial unveiling
DT12 - infamous cut-off issue fixed

The changes in the Octavarium cover likely had nothing to do with fans nitpicking, I'm certain that was never the final cover (and I thought that was widely accepted as fact). It didn't even have the hooks for the cables, and the bar didn't go all the way across. There is no way it was final, not even for all of the criticisms of Syme.
Same with SC, where they changed the font and colour after the initial unveiling. And I'm pretty sure they didn't change that one because people were complaining about a font choice.

Believe me, the wrong cover can very easily get used for lower priority stuff. Images get passed around to different people for various jobs, people use an image they assume is the right one without a second thought, because it looks 99% identical at a glance, and isn't noticeable unless you have both versions, so this easily happens.
I was sent 3 different versions of the BCASL cover, and the 2 different versions of the DT12 cover, all from official sources, and not in what would be chronological order either. It just depends on who you got it from, and when you got it, etc.

But the version that goes to print is always going to be the file directly from Syme, not from a loose image file floating around the office, so the majority of these mistakes have no chance of making it to print.

I can clearly see a couple of watermark errors in DT12's booklet.

[BlobVanDam]

I can clearly see a couple of watermark errors in DT12's booklet.

I know, I was referring to the mistakes due to early/incomplete versions of the cover (ie. just the examples in my post), which are revealed very early in the process, where fixes and changes are possible.
The inside artwork is revealed publicly fairly late in the process, so the chances of seeing something other than the finalized version is minimal, and changes are probably not possible by that point anyway.

[Setlist Scotty]

I doubt the man is given such a strict schedule that he has to cobble something together because he doesn't have the time to do it properly. I'd put money on the fact that he either is taking on way too much work at one time (he's very high demand, judging by some of his non-album artwork on his website), he's become lazy or he has underlings doing a lot of the work and he doesn't do a good job of QC'ing the work. In any case, he is at fault.

I say this because there was never a question of the quality of his work in the past - only in recent years has it come up. You can be sure that he's given the same deadlines he probably always has. I'd find it hard to believe that universally his deadlines on all projects suddenly became that much shorter, requiring the cutting of corners in terms of quality.

Well, I'm not even sure what you mean by 'recent years'. I mean, I'm not extensively familiar with Syme's work, but out of all the stuff he did for DT, the latest album was the only one where I noticed any real flaws, which included the main cover art cut off that has been fixed, and some watermark on the inside of the booklet, as well as some scaling issues with the beach scene. And yeah, that's 3 in 1 album that makes me wonder what happened, but on the previous 4 albums, I don't see any kinds of flaws or lack of quality. If people don't like the direction of it, well, that's unfortunate, but I can't say in definite terms that any of it was of poor quality.

Here are the issues I've had with the previous artwork:

• Octavarium: original cover art released to the public had plain purple lines instead of the steel string or chains or whatever that the balls are hanging from on the final version. The balls that are in motion on the newton's cradle are not at the correct angle to connect to the other balls (the string/chains are too short). On the inside art, the face of the dominoes on the stone henge picture looks very fake. The fish and the stop sign in the underwater scene are not photo realistic at all. The angle/curvature of the majesty symbol on the 8-ball image is not proper.

• Systematic Chaos: some of the freeway ramps have weird perspectives - they are too small/narrow for how they are positioned in comparison to some of the other ones; some just suddenly disappear. The fact that there is one again a black bar (this time going across the top as opposed to the bottom - oooo different!) on their very next release shows a lack of thought or ideas. The newton's cradle image (really - needed to reuse that idea?) is not photo realistic even tho the background is.

• Greatest Hit + 21: the "embossing" of the majesty symbol in the chair is poorly done.

• Chaos in Motion: the rusted metal (where the Chaos in Motion type is) is obnoxiously stretched so that it makes it to the bottom of the image. There is a distinct line where it starts (roughly about 1/8" below "Chaos" across the whole thing).

• Black Clouds: besides the shadows (or lack thereof) that were already mentioned, the majesty symbol on the ground is at a weird angle that doesn't fit. The lighting of the kid is the exact opposite of what it should be - his back should be dark and his front should be lit. Reusing the same exact image of the little boy (altho flopped - oooo different!) in the hospital scene.

• Dramatic Turn of Events: the majesty symbol is just put on the tail of the airplane with little thought given to it (especially in comparison to what tails of jet aircraft generally look like). The reuse of the unicycle clown for both This Is the Life and Beneath the Surface artwork. The shark fin looks almost like it's metal instead of like it's from a shark (not to mention putting the majesty symbol on it).

• Live at Luna Park: the angle/curvature of the majesty symbol on the jet body looks wrong. The jet body or at least the windows look fake. The engine is way too big in proportion to the clown (who, once again is being reused). And the lack of the tail piece of the aircraft showing, despite the fact that it should show at that angle.

• Dream Theater: see Bolsters post.

They keep using him because they like his work and they think it looks good?

I dunno, I am pretty sure in this age of Art By Photoshop you could probably take a magnifying glass and find every little artifact and thing you want to see as a mistake and call it shoddy artwork. I usually either don't see the OMG HUGE PROBLEMS people do with Syme's DT art, or I don't give a fuck if three pixels are out of whack. Sometimes I wonder if some of you here have any joy in your lives, all you do is look for the bad.

To begin with, I sure hope you NEVER have anything negative to say about DT or anyone else, otherwise we could say the same thing about you that you're spewing about those of us who are critical of Syme's artwork. 

That said, you're entitled to your opinion, but for me and most others, we're not looking for the bad - it's stands out to us. Especially those of us with a trained eye who are involved in graphic design and photo retouching. We are supposed to do things in a photo realistic manner - the final image should not look "photoshopped". If we do our job correctly, you won't know that anything was done to it in Photoshop. However, when someone of the stature of Hugh Syme starts producing artwork that is lower than his previously high standards (I L-O-V-E all his Rush artwork from the R30 release on back, as well as the vast majority of the stuff he's done for other bands in the 80's and 90's), it's going to grab my attention in a disappointing way.

For that reason, whenever I did anything for DT, I took the time to do it right. For MP's Octavarium bass drums, I made sure the majesty symbols on the stop sign and 8-ball were photo-realistic. For the 20th Anniversary Octavarium T-shirt (only sold at the RCMH/Score show), I made sure to adjust the swinging ball so that it was in line with the other balls. For the cover of the Chaos in Motion tourbook, I created an even black frame around the whole cover and in that frame is where I put the band name and tour name text. For the 25th Anniversary poster/Lifting Shadows cover, I made sure that the lighting and perspective of all the elements and shadows were as accurate as I could make them. I also made the majesty symbol/red sphere (from L@B)/black octagon (from Score) into a marble mosaic with gold edging at the proper perspective, since that is realistic/logical (instead of a majesty symbol shaped "stain" on the ground).

So yes, it IS important, at least to some of us, just as the music is.

The changes in the Octavarium cover likely had nothing to do with fans nitpicking, I'm certain that was never the final cover (and I thought that was widely accepted as fact). It didn't even have the hooks for the cables, and the bar didn't go all the way across. There is no way it was final, not even for all of the criticisms of Syme.

Not sure about that one Blob. I can't imagine that MP would've released that image to the public, knowing that it wasn't the final/complete image. I think it was after the big stink that the fans created over it, that he had Syme make some changes. Had it been the wrong image and he had the correct/final one as well, I'm sure MP would've corrected the matter immediately. But as I recall, it took at least a few days, so I don't he did have any other art, nor do I think there was to be any further changes to the art. Needless to say, I'm glad they did make the changes, tho the balls in motion still don't line up with the other ones.

[BlobVanDam]

The changes in the Octavarium cover likely had nothing to do with fans nitpicking, I'm certain that was never the final cover (and I thought that was widely accepted as fact). It didn't even have the hooks for the cables, and the bar didn't go all the way across. There is no way it was final, not even for all of the criticisms of Syme.

Not sure about that one Blob. I can't imagine that MP would've posted that image knowing that it wasn't the final/complete image. I think it was after the big stink that the fans created over it, that he had Syme make some changes. Had it been the wrong image and he had the correct/final one as well, I'm sure MP would've corrected the matter immediately. But as I recall, it took at least a few days, so I don't he did, nor do I think there were to be any further changes to the art.

There were so many changes to the cover, that I can't believe that. They didn't post the final art for SC either (and as I said earlier, I highly doubt they changed the font and colour because fans had a problem with it), so there is precedent for them posting "near complete" covers, then taking a little while longer to post the finished art.
In the case of BCASL, they actually did post the wrong cover initially with a mistake on the door shadow, and that was taken down quite quickly from what I recall. If Octavarium was a mistake, I would have expected them to take it down quickly.

But if you have any more insight on those, I'd love to hear it!

[Setlist Scotty]

The changes in the Octavarium cover likely had nothing to do with fans nitpicking, I'm certain that was never the final cover (and I thought that was widely accepted as fact). It didn't even have the hooks for the cables, and the bar didn't go all the way across. There is no way it was final, not even for all of the criticisms of Syme.

Not sure about that one Blob. I can't imagine that MP would've posted that image knowing that it wasn't the final/complete image. I think it was after the big stink that the fans created over it, that he had Syme make some changes. Had it been the wrong image and he had the correct/final one as well, I'm sure MP would've corrected the matter immediately. But as I recall, it took at least a few days, so I don't he did, nor do I think there were to be any further changes to the art.

There were so many changes to the cover, that I can't believe that. They didn't post the final art for SC either (and as I said earlier, I highly doubt they changed the font and colour because fans had a problem with it), so there is precedent for them posting "near complete" covers, then taking a little while longer to post the finished art.
In the case of BCASL, they actually did post the wrong cover initially with a mistake on the door shadow, and that was taken down quite quickly from what I recall. If Octavarium was a mistake, I would have expected them to take it down quickly.

But if you have any more insight on those, I'd love to hear it!

Not sure on what happened with SC - it could've been a mix up courtesy of Syme as was obviously the case with BCaSL. However, as detail oriented as MP was, I'd find it hard to believe that he wouldn't know which image was the correct/final one and which one wasn't, if he had more than one.

Regarding the Octavarium cover art, I don't know. I'll try to do some digging and see if I can find anything out.

[Cygnus17]

Why not stick with him?  Fantastic work dating back to the classic Rush years.

[rumborak]

Strange as it sounds, my issues with Syme's art have nothing to do with his laziness, usually.

Conceptually, I don't find his work very interesting. And his whole style just feels cold and soulless to me.

Yeah, same here. I never would have noticed the cut-off rope or the tilted planet. It's really the "cram stock images together into one pic" that just doesn't connect with me.

[Jaq]

One of the lowest forms of forum arguing is when someone makes an assumption regarding the amount of joy one has in their life. 

I've seen the supposed mistakes people get bent out of shape over and if that REALLY does bother them this much, then yes, I can't imagine how the fuck they enjoy anything. And it annoys me to no good end how people in this forum in particular seem to think because they don't like it, Dream Theater shouldn't, and the implicit criticism of DT inherent in that notion never ceases to amaze me. The end of this should simply be: Dream Theater likes his work. Their opinion is the ONLY one that counts.

[Jaffa]

And it annoys me to no good end how people in this forum in particular seem to think because they don't like it, Dream Theater shouldn't, and the implicit criticism of DT inherent in that notion never ceases to amaze me. The end of this should simply be: Dream Theater likes his work. Their opinion is the ONLY one that counts.

That doesn't mean people here can't discuss their own opinions.  Granted, it gets a bit excessive (in my opinion) when people start petitioning the band and stuff like that.  And if this thread was about contacting DT and RR to demand that they stop using Hugh Syme, I would totally be on your side.  But as it is, people are just discussing their own opinions of the artwork, and I don't see anything wrong with that. 

If the little mistakes don't bother you, good for you.  They bother some people, and that's okay, too. 

[Perpetual Change]

I've seen the supposed mistakes people get bent out of shape over and if that REALLY does bother them this much, then yes, I can't imagine how the fuck they enjoy anything.

Well, it happens. Maybe you need to broaden your perspective a bit.

And it annoys me to no good end how people in this forum in particular seem to think because they don't like it, Dream Theater shouldn't, and the implicit criticism of DT inherent in that notion never ceases to amaze me. The end of this should simply be: Dream Theater likes his work. Their opinion is the ONLY one that counts.

That's an opinion I'm sure every single member of DT past, present, and future would jump to protest. No one would contradict the assertion that DT think only their own opinions of their work are important faster than DT themselves, I think.

[Kotowboy]

I've seen the supposed mistakes people get bent out of shape over and if that REALLY does bother them this much, then yes, I can't imagine how the fuck they enjoy anything.

For me - it's more of the fact that Hugh is being PAID for his work and the fact that he obviously has no attention to detail and repeatedly turns in work which isn't the absolute best that he can do.


If I was getting paid to do a job for a band like Dream Theater - i'd wanna make damn sure it was my absolute best work.

•So that the band would be nothing less than totally happy with it.
•So that I know i'd given it the attention and detail it deserved for the money I was being paid.
•If I got paid to do work I knew was unfinished and lazy - I would not be able to accept that payment. - The fact that Hugh has done it so often means he obviously has no qualms about taking money for lazy work.

It was mentioned many times before - but it needs repeating -

- THIS IS NOT ABOUT DREAM THEATER. This is about Syme turning in work with stupid errors that would take 5 minutes to correct and expecting payment.

[King Postwhore]

Ah the internet, where people get their panties in a bunch over things not worth getting all ramped up about.

[Kotowboy]

It's also a discussion forum.

[ytserush]

I tend like his analog work a lot better.

Many of the concepts he's come up with (Rush and Dream Theater) are generally good, it's just his attention to detail can be somewhat lacking which is what others have said.  It may be just a case of a lack of mastery whith the digital realm.

I'm no graphic artist, but it takes a hell of a lot more work sometimes to get things right digitally than with analog.

[Implode]

Ah the internet, where people get their panties in a bunch over things not worth getting all ramped up about.

I never understood this critique. It's not like voicing an opinion on a forum takes a lot of effort. How is it not worth it? Complaining is how you can get things changed. Oh man, I just posted a WHOLE PARAGRAPH pointing out flaws in something. Clearly I need to get a life.

Are we not allowed to care about anything? I bet it'd be okay if people were "nitpicking" the music. Some people here are visual artists, and they might take great interest in that aspect of DT's work. Should they not care just because you don't?

[TheGreatPretender]

I never understood this critique. It's not like voicing an opinion on a forum takes a lot of effort. How is it not worth it? Complaining is how you can get things changed. Oh man, I just posted a WHOLE PARAGRAPH pointing out flaws in something. Clearly I need to get a life.

Are we not allowed to care about anything? I bet it'd be okay if people were "nitpicking" the music. Some people here are visual artists, and they might take great interest in that aspect of DT's work. Should they not care just because you don't?

I think the critique comes from the idea that face to face, people wouldn't complain like that. When talking face to face with someone, let's say, in an open forum, people often tend to sugarcoat things or outright not say them for the sake of not offending other people, not hurting their feelings, or whatever. But on the internet, it's easy to just spill a big speech about how something isn't good, and why.

I don't know very many people who'd sit there with a fan of a given band (even if they were fans) and say, "This album art is terrible. What the hell were they thinking?" The most they'd say is, "Yeah, I'm not really into it that much, to be honest. Sorry."

[Setlist Scotty]

I think the critique comes from the idea that face to face, people wouldn't complain like that. When talking face to face with someone, let's say, in an open forum, people often tend to sugarcoat things or outright not say them for the sake of not offending other people, not hurting their feelings, or whatever. But on the internet, it's easy to just spill a big speech about how something isn't good, and why.

I'll agree that this is the case with some people. However, that's not to say that all of us are afraid to say something to someone's face. It's one thing to do so politely and another to obnoxiously say something sucks. And I certainly did (politely) address my concerns with MP over Hugh's cover art several times after they were announced.

[Mebert78]

Just parachuting in this thread and read the last page of posts.  I had never noticed the disappearing roads and bridges on the Systematic Chaos cover.  Wow, that mistake in particular is pretty bad and inexcusable, in my opinion.  And now that I've seen it, I can't unsee it!

[Implode]

That tends to be the case with all of Syme's "mistakes". Many people don't notice them, but the few that do point it out, then many people can't unsee them. These kind of things have been in all of his DT artwork from the beginning as well.

[TheGreatPretender]

I don't see a big deal about this. The key to any album artwork, IMO, is whether it's attractive and eye catching. Will it pique a stranger's curiosity? Does it appropriately represent the tone of the album?

Whether the picture in it makes sense in the physical world is something I really, really don't care about.