DT in the studio again!

[King Postwhore]

I was just thinking the same thing.  As a kid, I'd wait listening to radio stations just to tape a new song from my favorite band for hours on end.  Now my life is so much busier and those fan boy days are gone.  Though, the internet now makes it a click of the mouse to listen to a new song over and over or to read info in a hot minute.

[BlobVanDam]

They may as well put a sticker on the front that says "contains 100% prog pretentiousness!" Leaving a band name off an album cover is a horrible idea. It's already bad enough they'll be leaving the album name off it.

I disagree, as I think that it would be the opposite of pretension given they have been around 20+ years, and also think that it would in fact be intriguing/eye catching to the guy in the music store. Heck, they've already gone ahead with the self titled thing, I can totally see them doing something like having only the logo on the cover. If they're gonna make a statement they might as well go all out on it.

Leaving a band name off your album is basically the definition of pretension.
The average person will not give a second look to an album cover with just a logo on it and no band or album title. The only people buying DT albums are DT fans, and all you're doing is making it that little bit harder for them to spot and identify. And it would complete a double cliche with the whole S/T thing too.
Stick your band name and album title on an album cover. It's common sense, not rocket science!

[Kotowboy]

Kanye West's Yeezus must be the most pretentious album ever !

[atmyne]

They may as well put a sticker on the front that says "contains 100% prog pretentiousness!" Leaving a band name off an album cover is a horrible idea. It's already bad enough they'll be leaving the album name off it.

I disagree, as I think that it would be the opposite of pretension given they have been around 20+ years, and also think that it would in fact be intriguing/eye catching to the guy in the music store. Heck, they've already gone ahead with the self titled thing, I can totally see them doing something like having only the logo on the cover. If they're gonna make a statement they might as well go all out on it.

Leaving a band name off your album is basically the definition of pretension.
The average person will not give a second look to an album cover with just a logo on it and no band or album title. The only people buying DT albums are DT fans, and all you're doing is making it that little bit harder for them to spot and identify. And it would complete a double cliche with the whole S/T thing too.
Stick your band name and album title on an album cover. It's common sense, not rocket science!

lol you state your claims as absolute fact. I mean, I am living proof that it's true that someone would at least pay attention to a logo only title (given it's a good looking and/or eye catching cover). Actually a lot of bands don't have either on the front cover, and still receive a decent amount of new listener-ship (consider some examples: Exai- Autechture, Fade- Cloudkicker, godspeed you black emperor: raise you're skinny fists, shrines- purity ring, uneven structure - 8 (reworked)....... "stick your band name and album title on an album cover. It's common sense"?). I mean, it's pretentious in the sense that it's a bit pompous, but hardly so in comparison with some covers we are seeing in this day and age. I think it would be fine although then again i don't give a toss about album covers anyway... and i'd put forward that a decent amount of people who WILL buy the album don't care, and that, the cover on its own, is only of marginal importance given the way that people discover music through social media, forums, youtube etc.
I do agree on the double cliche with the S/T thing though lol, which kind of makes me HOPE it will be just their logo on the front 

[BlobVanDam]

I have not heard of a single one of those bands that you cite as examples of bands that have a decent amount of listeners, so I don't think you're helping your cause one bit. I stick by my comments 100%.

I know DT isn't the biggest band in the world by any stretch, but it would just be such an awful decision for a band that doesn't flip burgers during the day to not even put the band name on the album. Only on a prog forum would this even need to be explained. WTF, guys!

[robwebster]

Kanye West's Yeezus must be the most pretentious album ever !

Well, of course it is! It's Kanye West. And yes, removing the packaging altogether is such a ridiculous ~artistic statement~.

That said, leaving the title off is pretty normal nowadays - 'fraid I disagree with Blob on this one! Looks classier without a title. As you say, the main audience for a DT album is a DT fan... and I can't think there are going to be many DT fans who won't know what the album looks like! Especially if it's a big purple majesty emblem yawning up at you (which it isn't, but that seems to be part of the alternate reality we're proposing where there's no DT logo). I know I'm a huge proponent of the many forms of the casual Dream Theater fan, and keeping in mind that this website isn't the first and last word in loving DT, but DT's core audience is rather more on the pulse than most bands'. They have to be, what with the lack of any kind of mainstream promotion.

Quite beyond that, though, many CDs with no title on the artwork also pop a sticker on the jewel case , and above that... they'd be dead easy to find in music shops, cos they'll have a big divider that says "DREAM THEATER."

In fact, I posted this in the chat thread the other week --



That's doubly clear.



I do think it would be kind of a mixed message to leave the logo off a self-titled album, though. If the statement is meant to be a bold, defiant, "THIS AM DREAM THEATER," that's a statement worth incorporating into the pretty picture at the top of the album. "This is our self-titled, untitled album." What!?

[atmyne]

I have not heard of a single one of those bands that you cite as examples of bands that have a decent amount of listeners, so I don't think you're helping your cause one bit. I stick by my comments 100%.

You haven't at least heard of Godspeed You! Black Emperor?
not only are they far from being some hipster band, but I'd absolutely suggest checking that album out!
edit: an even better example (sigur ros: Kveikur)

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

Albums should always have the band name. Otherwise, they compromise the aesthetic integrity of my collection.

And we don't want that.

[robwebster]

I have not heard of a single one of those bands that you cite as examples of bands that have a decent amount of listeners, so I don't think you're helping your cause one bit. I stick by my comments 100%.

You haven't at least heard of Godspeed You! Black Emperor?
not only are they far from being some hipster band, but I'd absolutely suggest checking that album out!

In fairness, GY!BE is... pretty much the definition of the word pretentious! I think superfluous grammar is one of the clearest beacons that a band has decided it's going to be oh-so incredibly artful. They're exactly some hipster band.

I think Dark Side of the Moon is probably the best argument in favour of leaving a title off some album covers. How shit would that look with "PINK FLOYD" scratched across it in big letters? And it, er... didn't exactly hurt its sales figures. Even pre-internet.

[Kotowboy]

The words " Dream Theater " will definitely be on the cover.

Doubly so since it's self titled !

It's the name of the band AND the album !

Why *not* name an album if you're not gonna tell anyone what it is !!

[BlobVanDam]

I have not heard of a single one of those bands that you cite as examples of bands that have a decent amount of listeners, so I don't think you're helping your cause one bit. I stick by my comments 100%.

You haven't at least heard of Godspeed You! Black Emperor?
not only are they far from being some hipster band, but I'd absolutely suggest checking that album out!

Actually yes, but I've only ever seen them mentioned on DTF. Even a glance at the wikipedia page tells me we are speaking completely different languages in this conversation.

[atmyne]

I have not heard of a single one of those bands that you cite as examples of bands that have a decent amount of listeners, so I don't think you're helping your cause one bit. I stick by my comments 100%.

You haven't at least heard of Godspeed You! Black Emperor?
not only are they far from being some hipster band, but I'd absolutely suggest checking that album out!

In fairness, GY!BE is... pretty much the definition of the word pretentious! I think superfluous grammar is one of the clearest beacons that a band has decided it's going to be oh-so incredibly artful. They're exactly some hipster band.

I think Dark Side of the Moon is probably the best argument in favour of leaving a title off some album covers. How shit would that look with "PINK FLOYD" scratched across it in big letters? And it, er... didn't exactly hurt its sales figures. Even pre-internet.

in relation to you're GY!BE: a subjective assertion, and I disagree, however I think what is defined as pretentious is outside the scope of this thread, so i'm not going down that road and we aught to digress...
Dark side of the moon: yes!

I have not heard of a single one of those bands that you cite as examples of bands that have a decent amount of listeners, so I don't think you're helping your cause one bit. I stick by my comments 100%.

You haven't at least heard of Godspeed You! Black Emperor?
not only are they far from being some hipster band, but I'd absolutely suggest checking that album out!

Actually yes, but I've only ever seen them mentioned on DTF. Even a glance at the wikipedia page tells me we are speaking completely different languages in this conversation.

I think we are in totally different places 
I think the point was you stated that having you're band and album names on the cover is absolutely essential and there's no questioning that. I'm putting forward that that is simply not the case.

[BlobVanDam]

Your arguments have actually convinced me more of being right. Sorry. I can only agree to disagree here, because I have nothing nice to say if I continue.
If Godspeed You Etc doesn't ring alarm bells of pretentiousness, I honestly don't know what else would. And I don't think I want to know.

[robwebster]

in relation to you're GY!BE: a subjective assertion, and I disagree, however I think what is defined as pretentious is outside the scope of this thread, so i'm not going down that road and we aught to digress...

Absolutely! Sorry if it didn't come across that way, but yeah, not an authority, don't claim to be the last word on anything. Just... my last word. I'd say that GY!BE are pretty much the exact and polar opposite of a down-to-earth group of musicians who just like playing cool music. Likewise, Sigur Ros invented a nonsense language for their album, which is umpteen times more pretentious, in my book, than playing a weedly guitar solo for a couple of minutes. So, like Blob, I fear I'm probably speaking a different language to you on that particular front. Which is absolutely fine! Good, plenty of opinions! I'm not wrong, I'm not right - but at the same time, I just don't see those bands as more grounded than DT in any way, so I'm not 100% sure they're the best comparison in this particular case.

Or to put it another way, only one of us is fluent in Hopelandic. q:

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

*comes in*
*looks around*

Logo and no band name = pretentious.  The name Dream Theater is well known.  Mostly only DT fans know the Majesty symbol.  T'would be a really short sighted move, IMO.

*leaves for vacation and won't see your argument*

[atmyne]

Your arguments have actually convinced me more of being right. Sorry. I can only agree to disagree here, because I have nothing nice to say if I continue.
If Godspeed You Etc doesn't ring alarm bells of pretentiousness, I honestly don't know what else would. And I don't think I want to know.

Okay, I think i'm with you (and Rob) now, and this has gone WAY out of hand, and this will be the LAST I will say about this.
Firstly, I never said that GY!BE is not a pretentious band. Despite the fact they are considered incredibly pretentious, they ARE celebrated for the musical content and performances they have put on, and are one of the most celebrated post-rock bands. You need only read reviews to see that people LOVE THE MUSIC despite how "pretentious" they are or come across (for example: https://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=6180). The same for Sigur ros.
They were merely some randomly selected artists who have put out albums with essentially nothing on the cover, BUT are still considered MUSICALLY successful albums. They attract new listeners due to the musical content they produce, which is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE to how pretentious or financially successful they are.

in relation to you're GY!BE: a subjective assertion, and I disagree, however I think what is defined as pretentious is outside the scope of this thread, so i'm not going down that road and we aught to digress...

Absolutely! Sorry if it didn't come across that way, but yeah, not an authority, don't claim to be the last word on anything. Just... my last word. I'd say that GY!BE are pretty much the exact and polar opposite of a down-to-earth group of musicians who just like playing cool music. Likewise, Sigur Ros invented a nonsense language for their album, which is umpteen times more pretentious, in my book, than playing a weedly guitar solo for a couple of minutes. So, like Blob, I fear I'm probably speaking a different language to you on that particular front. Which is absolutely fine! Good, plenty of opinions! I'm not wrong, I'm not right - but at the same time, I just don't see those bands as more grounded than DT in any way, so I'm not 100% sure they're the best comparison in this particular case.

Or to put it another way, only one of us is fluent in Hopelandic. q:

It ultimately comes down to ones opinion. I will say that being "more grounded" is another ambiguous and sweeping statement that will mean something to different people, but that's cool. and no apparently they weren't the best examples considering this train wreck of a tangent , they were merely an example to show that having your title (band/album) on the cover is  not essential. OK DONE! MOVING ON PLZ

[BlobVanDam]

atmyne, we're on different wavelengths here, so I'm fine to leave it too.


And I'm sorry if I came across as a jerk with my opinions. It's nothing personal. I'm a jerk to everyone.

[King Postwhore]

I'd say you are just old fashioned Blob.  Old School!

[robwebster]

To find some less... pretentious examples, of album covers without titles on them.

Coldplay are probably a good example, considering they're often derided as one of the least cool, blandest bands in pop, but they've only put their band's name on one of five album covers. And the one with their band name on looks, in a word, rubbish. Arctic Monkeys, too, are fairly standard indie rock, and they've released covers without their name on it. Red Hot Chili Peppers' image is, basically, surfer beach-bum, but their name, while present on I'm With You, is almost invisible. Daft Punk are pure fun, and their latest album doesn't have their name on it.

I don't think it's innately pretentious or unpretentious. It's just a matter of how it's done.

I think all those albums are significantly more striking, artwise, than any DT album that's been released in the same time-frame, they're all from blockbuster bands who target the casual radio listener far more than Dream Theater's ever endeavoured to, and it's fair to say the lack of a visible title didn't hurt a single one of them.

I don't think it'd be sensible for DT12 to remove the logo, but that's only cos it's self-titled. Ask me again in two years, and I'll think it'd be a-okay.

ETA: Oh! We're leaving it behind, now? All right, then!

[liran95]

They should just write "DT12", and below, in a very very very small font: "Here you go, DTF".

[wasteland]

Imagine if we were credited for inspiration in the liner notes

[dparrott]

They should just write "DT12", and below, in a very very very small font: "Here you go, DTF".

Heh...or DTXII

I don't see a no name cover as pretentious, the logo is for the real fans, and a sticker on the outer plastic with the band's name on it to identify it.

[TAC]

I'm sorry but WTF is a Godspeed black emperor?

[atmyne]

atmyne, we're on different wavelengths here, so I'm fine to leave it too.

And I'm sorry if I came across as a jerk with my opinions. It's nothing personal. I'm a jerk to everyone.

All good brother. You didn't come across as a jerk

ETA: Oh! We're leaving it behind, now? All right, then!

Great examples! I mean I'm no senior member or mod here, but I feel like the topic(s) almost should be its own thread in a non-DT related section? It seems like we're cluttering the thread up with this "what is and isn't pretentious" and "to what extent is pretentiousness acceptable" topic. But that's just me. I think DT could totally pull off just the logo. Some people think not. I don't think the cover matters very much at all. Some people think it's a part of the package and that it's important. I guess we won't know until it's revealed... 

[King Postwhore]

I'm sorry but WTF is a Godspeed black emperor?

A band Tim you old metallhead.

I do the same thing.

And it's Godspeed You! Black Emperor.

[Lucien]

That was a lot to read.

You guys post a LOT overnight.

[aprilethereal]

let alone in the course of a week. That's what I had to read earlier today

[SomeoneLikeHim]

You're saying it like it's som sort of obligation.

[GasparXR]

You're saying it like it's som sort of obligation.

You mean it isn't?

[aprilethereal]

Of course it is.

[dparrott]

Heh, it's like "art?  tracklist? no.  (next page) art?  tracklist? no.  (next page)" etc.

[Lucien]

Heh, it's like "art?  tracklist? no.  (next page) art?  tracklist? no.  (next page)" etc.

I actually read all the posts. However, between next Monday and the Sunday after, I won't have any internet or ability to read the posts.

I just realized how much I won't be able to wait to get home after the trip. I'm going to run through my door, run up to my computer, turn it on, run back downstairs, eat a plum and or a nectarine, then run upstairs, and check the facebook accounts for DT and RR, then the twitter accounts for both, then the DT website, then here.

If there is a single released next week at the same time as the tracklist/album artwork (which would make sense) I'm probably going to cry. And listen to the song about a million times.

[Jinx]

Dude, enjoy your trip. I live me some DT but dang, its summer!!

Also just because you may miss the initial reveal doesnt mean you need to cry!!

[MoraWintersoul]

Also just because you may miss the initial reveal doesnt mean you need to cry!!

Duh, it's not like they're gonna take it off the internet ten minutes after the reveal.

[darkshade]

Heh, it's like "art?  tracklist? no.  (next page) art?  tracklist? no.  (next page)" etc.

I actually read all the posts. However, between next Monday and the Sunday after, I won't have any internet or ability to read the posts.

I just realized how much I won't be able to wait to get home after the trip. I'm going to run through my door, run up to my computer, turn it on, run back downstairs, eat a plum and or a nectarine, then run upstairs, and check the facebook accounts for DT and RR, then the twitter accounts for both, then the DT website, then here. And there still won't be any news!

Fixed.