New Album “Distance Over Time’, First Set of 2019 Tour Dates announced!

[mikeyd23]

Good old Hugh. 

Not sure what that means or why it is somehow a knock on Syme.  Using stock images is kind of a standard thing these days (hence why an organization as large and reputable as the NYT did and does).

Yup, I actually use stock images weekly for my job. It wasn't really a knock, it was just more me remembering how Hugh puts his artwork together, that's all.

[cramx3]

but that's the entire album cover, two stock images.  I actually kind of like the cover, but it makes me wonder what they pay him to make these because I've seen more creative artists here who would be able to make their own robot hand and skull, than pull from stock.  Also NYT isn't a form of art really and needs to get images on a daily basis, where as an album cover is a work of art and knowing the image was created from two stock images just comes off as lazy IMO when you consider the amount of time and planning that should go into this art.  Having said that, I'll repeat, I actually do like the album art.

[DreamerTV]

Good old Hugh. 

Not sure what that means or why it is somehow a knock on Syme.  Using stock images is kind of a standard thing these days (hence why an organization as large and reputable as the NYT did and does).

It's not about using stock images (although, as pointed out by cramx3, i'd like to know if this guy has been paid just to put together stuff or to came up with an actual idea), it's the fact that there're two concepts with the same exact idea out there (and the same elements). And i'd like to know about the timing of this, as it was not NYT who produced the cover but it was a contest won by this Delcan & Company, which is not by any extent linked with Syme.

The result of this is that next NYT magazine cover issue will be the same exact artwork dt has presented 10 days ago for their new album. Something that at least will result in bad marketing.

[Setlist Scotty]

but that's the entire album cover, two stock images.  I actually kind of like the cover, but it makes me wonder what they pay him to make these because I've seen more creative artists here who would be able to make their own robot hand and skull, than pull from stock.  Also NYT isn't a form of art really and needs to get images on a daily basis, where as an album cover is a work of art and knowing the image was created from two stock images just comes off as lazy IMO when you consider the amount of time and planning that should go into this art.  Having said that, I'll repeat, I actually do like the album art.

Exactly. To further what cramx3 said, an album cover is to be something unique and identifiable - something that's going to last for a long time. Something that appears on the cover of a newspaper or website is (usually) hardly memorable, nor is it likely to be something that's going to last, be used and/or referred to years from now. Album artwork OTOH will. And the thing is, Hugh has the ability to come up with unique things - I highly doubt that everything he's done for Rush has all been from a stock image library, although an occasional element might be. But for the whole image (save for maybe the background....then again, who's to say that's not stock photography?) to be based on some stock images is just the fast/cheap/lazy way out. Unless he gave DT price options (it will cost $____ for artwork using stock photography and it will cost $____ more if you want all the images to be all original) and they cheaped out.

[Architeuthis]

Stock images are a lazy way out imo, and I still can't stand the album cover!  I am very excited about hearing the album and I know the music will make me forget about the cover. DT never disappoints in that dept.. 

[gzarruk]

but that's the entire album cover, two stock images.  I actually kind of like the cover, but it makes me wonder what they pay him to make these because I've seen more creative artists here who would be able to make their own robot hand and skull, than pull from stock.  Also NYT isn't a form of art really and needs to get images on a daily basis, where as an album cover is a work of art and knowing the image was created from two stock images just comes off as lazy IMO when you consider the amount of time and planning that should go into this art.  Having said that, I'll repeat, I actually do like the album art.

Exactly. To further what cramx3 said, an album cover is to be something unique and identifiable - something that's going to last for a long time. Something that appears on the cover of a newspaper or website is (usually) hardly memorable, nor is it likely to be something that's going to last, be used and/or referred to years from now. Album artwork OTOH will. And the thing is, Hugh has the ability to come up with unique things - I highly doubt that everything he's done for Rush has all been from a stock image library, although an occasional element might be. But for the whole image (save for maybe the background....then again, who's to say that's not stock photography?) to be based on some stock images is just the fast/cheap/lazy way out. Unless he gave DT price options (it will cost $____ for artwork using stock photography and it will cost $____ more if you want all the images to be all original) and they cheaped out.

Maybe adding the "137" was his idea

[DreamerTV]

Maybe adding the "137" was his idea

idk, but i like to think that's coming from Mangini, being him a lot into maths.

[bosk1]

...it's the fact that there're two concepts with the same exact idea out there (and the same elements).

Okay, but (and try not to take offense at this, because it isn't a shot at you personally), so what?  Why is that a problem?

And i'd like to know about the timing of this...

From everything I know, DT had it first.  Even though we only first saw it 10 days or so ago, it had been in the pipeline before that.  It's not like they got the artwork from Syme, and put it out there 5 minutes later.

Something that at least will result in bad marketing.

How so?  Doesn't seem like much of an issue to me. 

[bosk1]

Maybe adding the "137" was his idea

It was.

Maybe adding the "137" was his idea

idk, but i like to think that's coming from Mangini, being him a lot into maths.

Hmm... 

[Cool Chris]

That's not a reasonable comparison.

If spending 5 minutes finding a couple stock images and throwing together an album cover is standard these days, well then I guess that's what it is. But if true, I don't see why a band can't pay some 18 year old $20 to do the same thing and get the same results.

[ToT-147]

...it's the fact that there're two concepts with the same exact idea out there (and the same elements).

There aren't TWO concepts with the same idea, there are hundreds of them.. Just search in the web.. Now, about them being the same elements -which they're not, the skull is clearly different-, it's definitely weird and curious, but neither do I find that to be "a lazy way out" (we need to know more to think something like that; I personally don't think that's the case, although it could be) or "bad marketing" (it's not that DT fans would not buy the album only because the same cover's image was used somewhere else... or would they?)..

[bosk1]

I am curious to know whether anyone's opinion of the situation would be different if it were to turn out that Jamie Chung and/or Pablo Delcan are DT fans.

[Vandalism]

Reading the interview, it seems that JMX got his years old wish at last.

During the WDADRU commentary,he talked about living together for a change and writing music just the way they used to in the 80s. However, MP cited their family and other constraints as the reason why they just can't do something like that.

[pg1067]

There's a concept in copyright law called "striking similarity," and it essentially means that two things are so close to each other than they cannot reasonably be the product of anything other than copying.  Given that DT made this art public on November 2, it seems awfully coincidental that the NYT is using almost the same image for something that's being released on November 18.  If I were DT's management, I'd have the lawyers on the horn pretty quickly.

I am curious to know whether anyone's opinion of the situation would be different if it were to turn out that Jamie Chung and/or Pablo Delcan are DT fans.

That would buttress a claim that they copied what DT did.

[TH1RT3EN]

As long as Syme doesn't screw up by leaving watermarks and stuff like that again, I guess it'll be fine.

[mikeyd23]

Reading the interview, it seems that JMX got his years old wish at last.

During the WDADRU commentary,he talked about living together for a change and writing music just the way they used to in the 80s. However, MP cited their family and other constraints as the reason why they just can't do something like that.

Good call, I forgot about that.

[Chino]

Neither DT or the NYT were really original with that concept.

[DreamerTV]

There's a concept in copyright law called "striking similarity," and it essentially means that two things are so close to each other than they cannot reasonably be the product of anything other than copying.  Given that DT made this art public on November 2, it seems awfully coincidental that the NYT is using almost the same image for something that's being released on November 18.  If I were DT's management, I'd have the lawyers on the horn pretty quickly.

I am curious to know whether anyone's opinion of the situation would be different if it were to turn out that Jamie Chung and/or Pablo Delcan are DT fans.

That would buttress a claim that they copied what DT did.

This.
And to answer to Bosk, first I'm not used to take anything personal on the net anymore , second what i said is that i don't know who has produced the art first (although is clear that Dt artwork was produced way before its release, we don't know, as i said, details about NYT magazine contest). About bad marketing: okay, maybe the majority will not care that much, but i don't think i'm alone in thinking DT deserves, and look for, originals ideas when it comes to their works. Just the thought that the artwork could be a mere copy/past adjust is poor by itself.

@ToT-147: it's not me who's supposed to look at the web to figure if my ideas are somehow original or not (at least not in this case!). An artist like Syme, or the guys who made the cover for NYT, are. And because of what pg1067 said, it's a problem if are not to this extent. I sincerely liked the cover, still do, and didn't know it was that common of a concept - except the original reference, of course.

[As I Am]

Basically, I care NOT what's on the cover, but what's on the disc!

[Ninjabait]

I don't think striking similarity would apply much at all here. As Chino has just shown us, this specific image concept has been done. A lot. The whole concept of a hand holding a skull and the associated symbolism was popularized by Hamlet (which is in the public domain) and switching the human being holding holding the skull for a robot is not exactly reinventing the wheel. It works well, but it's not original and most people would not be able to find who actually invented it.

Suing based on this would be like Marvin Gaye's estate and label claiming he owns a common 4-bar chord progression that was used previously in a Bach piece (among other places) and suing people for using something vaguely similar to that progression. Oh wait.

[ToT-147]

I am curious to know whether anyone's opinion of the situation would be different if it were to turn out that Jamie Chung and/or Pablo Delcan are DT fans.

One confirmed.. Don't know about the other...

[bosk1]

  Wrong Jamie Chung.  But nice effort.

[ToT-147]

Yes, I know .. Thanks!..

@ToT-147: it's not me who's supposed to look at the web to figure if my ideas are somehow original or not (at least not in this case!). An artist like Syme, or the guys who made the cover for NYT, are. And because of what pg1067 said, it's a problem if are not to this extent. I sincerely liked the cover, still do, and didn't know it was that common of a concept - except the original reference, of course.

Yeah, I like it too.. And I wasn't saying you should be aware that the cover it's so common, but neither are they, or at least it shouldn't matter to them.. I'd like to think the band wanted it just like that, and in that case, even if they knew the cover was all over the web, there's no reason they couldn't use it..

[Pax]

I just hope it won't be another DT12. Full of short songs with no actual meat in them (meat - great middle instrumental section which evolves to the climax of the song, like octavarium, itpoe, tmols, itnog, bits, ...)

These are the songs that I really end up loving and looking forward to hear again. I want typical DT form (which can be explained as a great middle section and the part surrounding it), not some mediocre middle sections with some keyboard/guitar solo here and there.
Songs on the last two albums were good, but only when I'm in that kind of mood to chill a bit and hear them - not a single song that can be considered a ''masterpiece'' (apart from maybe illumination theory, but that song is also a big IF as well).

To be clear, I don't want every song like that. I'd be happy if there's only a few. But keep in mind that we haven't had this kind of songs since ADTOE.

[JediKnight1969]

Neither DT or the NYT were really original with that concept.

Same hand!

[Architeuthis]

There's a concept in copyright law called "striking similarity," and it essentially means that two things are so close to each other than they cannot reasonably be the product of anything other than copying.  Given that DT made this art public on November 2, it seems awfully coincidental that the NYT is using almost the same image for something that's being released on November 18.  If I were DT's management, I'd have the lawyers on the horn pretty quickly.

No, keep the lawyers out of it. This would give them a chance to fix this trainwreck of an album cover before Feb 22..  😈

[Darkstarshadesreborn]

The hand is a promoter's and the skull represents the dead South American tours

[The Walrus]

There's a concept in copyright law called "striking similarity," and it essentially means that two things are so close to each other than they cannot reasonably be the product of anything other than copying.  Given that DT made this art public on November 2, it seems awfully coincidental that the NYT is using almost the same image for something that's being released on November 18.  If I were DT's management, I'd have the lawyers on the horn pretty quickly.

No, keep the lawyers out of it. This would give them a chance to fix this trainwreck of an album cover before Feb 22..  😈

What's so bad about it that it warrants being called a trainwreck? Looks cool to me.

[Adami]

Yea, if any cover is a train wreck, it's the ToT cover.

[Ben_Jamin]

Reading the interview, it seems that JMX got his years old wish at last.

During the WDADRU commentary,he talked about living together for a change and writing music just the way they used to in the 80s. However, MP cited their family and other constraints as the reason why they just can't do something like that.

It was the right time to do it, as their kids are now older. I'm sure we'll get some awesome Bass licks this time.

[bosk1]

Rudy Sarzo did not join DT.  There will be no licking of basses. 

[Architeuthis]

There's a concept in copyright law called "striking similarity," and it essentially means that two things are so close to each other than they cannot reasonably be the product of anything other than copying.  Given that DT made this art public on November 2, it seems awfully coincidental that the NYT is using almost the same image for something that's being released on November 18.  If I were DT's management, I'd have the lawyers on the horn pretty quickly.

No, keep the lawyers out of it. This would give them a chance to fix this trainwreck of an album cover before Feb 22..  😈

What's so bad about it that it warrants being called a trainwreck? Looks cool to me.

It just seems so generic to me, lacks imagination.  I'm part of the problem because I hate the sight of skulls.  I just think Dream Theater has too much class to have a skull and a lame robot hand as the centerpiece of their album cover. I know I'm probably missing the point, but I still don't like it.

[erwinrafael]

Yea, if any cover is a train wreck, it's the ToT cover.

Too bad they only got Dave McKean to do one.

[bosk1]

There's a concept in copyright law called "striking similarity," and it essentially means that two things are so close to each other than they cannot reasonably be the product of anything other than copying.  Given that DT made this art public on November 2, it seems awfully coincidental that the NYT is using almost the same image for something that's being released on November 18.  If I were DT's management, I'd have the lawyers on the horn pretty quickly.

No, keep the lawyers out of it. This would give them a chance to fix this trainwreck of an album cover before Feb 22..  😈

What's so bad about it that it warrants being called a trainwreck? Looks cool to me.

It just seems so generic to me, lacks imagination.  I'm part of the problem because I hate the sight of skulls.  I just think Dream Theater has too much class to have a skull and a lame robot hand as the centerpiece of their album cover. I know I'm missing the point, but I still don't like it..

As you acknowledge, that is entirely YOUR problem--not the band's.  So watch your terminology.  Your own personality quirks do not make the band's output a "train wreck." 

[Architeuthis]

There's a concept in copyright law called "striking similarity," and it essentially means that two things are so close to each other than they cannot reasonably be the product of anything other than copying.  Given that DT made this art public on November 2, it seems awfully coincidental that the NYT is using almost the same image for something that's being released on November 18.  If I were DT's management, I'd have the lawyers on the horn pretty quickly.

No, keep the lawyers out of it. This would give them a chance to fix this trainwreck of an album cover before Feb 22..  😈

What's so bad about it that it warrants being called a trainwreck? Looks cool to me.

It just seems so generic to me, lacks imagination.  I'm part of the problem because I hate the sight of skulls.  I just think Dream Theater has too much class to have a skull and a lame robot hand as the centerpiece of their album cover. I know I'm missing the point, but I still don't like it..

As you acknowledge, that is entirely YOUR problem--not the band's.  So watch your terminology.  Your own personality quirks do not make the band's output a "train wreck."

Excellent point!