Worth noting that the cover I posted is actually painted, not CGI.
Wow! Really? Could've sworn that it was CGI. That said, I don't have a problem with CGI if it's done in such a way as to look organic. As an example, the CGI used in the Lord of the Rings movies was very well done. If a cover had that kind of quality CGI (not speaking of the content), I'd be totally down with that. But that Helloween, while obviously an organic painting doesn't do anything for me either. I guess if it were to be a painting, I'd like something along the lines of Rush's Grace Under Pressure (my favorite cover of theirs) or even the original Vapor Trails.
In large part I think this is a product of convenience. Nowadays, stock images will be more widely accessible and easier to use for what he'd want to achieve wheras for the bulk of Rush's covers (remember only 3 Rush albums are in this century and only 1 is in the 2010s), they weren't even in an era where browsing through millions of stock images through the internet was even possible and therefore necessitated that more bespoke approach. I suspect if the tools had been there at the time, they would've been more in use. As for any more modern ones that don't rely on stock images, we can kinda take the simple explanation with this one and say that he didn't use stock images in those cases because he couldn't find ones relevant enough to justify using them, which I can easily see being the case with something like Rush's Clockwork Angels given its very unique aesthetic. I can also see it being the case for Octavarium, as he probably had a very specific look in mind and whatever stock image hosts were out there (I'm sure they weren't as ubiquitous in 2005 as they are now), nothing really cut it.
Honestly, I probably agree that it'd be preferable for him to go that more bespoke approach for each album but I can understand the reasoning for not going that route. It's why I don't think Hugh is the best artist for DT because he strikes me as an artist who sort of takes the path of least resistance that, to get a more substantial piece out of him, you would have to be particular in your specification. John Petrucci doesn't strike me as a particularly confrontational or pushy person so that more relaxed character might not be getting the best out of Syme in this environment. That's just speculation, though. Maybe they went through numerous iterations of that skull and hand piece that we don't know about, but I kind of doubt it.
Oh there's no doubt it's a matter of convenience, and if used to a limited degree or heavily modified, that's fine. But yeah, at least for the cover art, it would be better to use original images/elements rather than just downloading something, which somebody else could also do.
As for JP's relationship with Hugh (and MP before him) - I think you're pretty spot on about them not being confrontational or pushy with what they want for imagery. From the times I spoke with MP about it, I always got the impression they put their full trust him unless it was something that was way off the mark.
Did the band ever said why they went with a different artist for The Astonishing? I'd be interested to know what prompted this decision since they've been working with Hugh Syme for years and went back to work with him right after.
If I'm not mistaken, actually Hugh passed on doing the art for TA when JP explained what he wanted, because it was really beyond Hugh's element. But they've always been happy with Hugh's art and packaging, which is why they went back to him for d/t.
I like really simple but striking artwork like Mastodon's The Hunter or Metallica's St Anger.
The Hunter is cool, but St. Anger? No thanks! Horrible artwork. Can't believe that's what Pushead came up with after all the art he had done for Metallica previously.