Hugh Syme is at it again

[Orion - Music]

Speaking of being hired by Hugh, a couple of people on Facebook have actually suggested that Hugh and I cooked up this whole duplicate artwork thing as a publicity stunt!

The mind really does boggle.

[Architeuthis]

Speaking of being hired by Hugh, a couple of people on Facebook have actually suggested that Hugh and I cooked up this whole duplicate artwork thing as a publicity stunt!

The mind really does boggle.

Dang, there goes the conspiracy theory bandwagon-eers again. They're all over the place, and like to create drama where there is none.

[Skeever]

Speaking of being hired by Hugh, a couple of people on Facebook have actually suggested that Hugh and I cooked up this whole duplicate artwork thing as a publicity stunt!

The mind really does boggle.

If I may...
I think the initial response to tag DT and tag them and their fans was a little bit weird? Of course, fans are going to feel like their favorite band is under attack, and they are going to want to defend them. It's like if someone's parents unknowingly bought their child YOUR stolen iPhone from the 2nd hand electronics shop for his birthday, and you try and resolve that issue by showing up at the child's school and making an announcement in their homeroom.

Assuming that you did try to reach out to DT and Hugh privately and got nothing as a result, then I think going the social media route was appropriate. But usually, you work with someone who you're unhappy with, the professional thing to do is try and settle it with them, not just leave them a shit review and hope they reach out to you.

That said, you've got a legit grievance and glad it's being helped now (or is it?) even if I just hate how things occur on social media these days. I can understand how much it must hurt to spend your own money on something and have it diminished so quickly with a mishap like this. I hope that Hugh can make it right for you, though I guess only you can say what that that means at this point.

[Kyo]

I think the initial response to tag DT and tag them and their fans was a little bit weird? Of course, fans are going to feel like their favorite band is under attack

Just those who can't read.

usually, you work with someone who you're unhappy with, the professional thing to do is try and settle it with them, not just leave them a shit review and hope they reach out to you.

I don't think this type of "usually" applies here. This isn't some purely private issue. The problem only became known after the albums were already released to the public and at that point both bands were at risk of looking like they copied the other band's artwork. Going public with a statement pre-emptively was a valid and appropriate way to avoid that impression.

[Skeever]

 

Just those who can't read.


I don't think this type of "usually" applies here. This isn't some purely private issue. The problem only became known after the albums were already released to the public and at that point both bands were at risk of looking like they copied the other band's artwork. Going public with a statement pre-emptively was a valid and appropriate way to avoid that impression.

I would have never assumed that, personally, but what you're saying makes sense.

[Orion - Music]

If I may...
I think the initial response to tag DT and tag them and their fans was a little bit weird? Of course, fans are going to feel like their favorite band is under attack, and they are going to want to defend them. It's like if someone's parents unknowingly bought their child YOUR stolen iPhone from the 2nd hand electronics shop for his birthday, and you try and resolve that issue by showing up at the child's school and making an announcement in their homeroom.

Assuming that you did try to reach out to DT and Hugh privately and got nothing as a result, then I think going the social media route was appropriate. But usually, you work with someone who you're unhappy with, the professional thing to do is try and settle it with them, not just leave them a shit review and hope they reach out to you.

That said, you've got a legit grievance and glad it's being helped now (or is it?) even if I just hate how things occur on social media these days. I can understand how much it must hurt to spend your own money on something and have it diminished so quickly with a mishap like this. I hope that Hugh can make it right for you, though I guess only you can say what that that means at this point.

I have to be a little careful in what I say around this issue, and I would certainly like to say more. It's just that now is not an appropriate time.

My main reason for tagging DT was to raise awareness on their end; what had happened to me had also happened to them. Certainly, at no point did I call them out or accuse them of any wrongdoing. There are dozens and dozens of posts where I very explicitly stated as much.

To be honest, it never even occurred to me that their fans might, as you said, feel like their favourite band is under attack. Perhaps that was because I didn't attack them on any level.

Although, I don't understand what you mean by the middle part of this sentence: 'I think the initial response to tag DT and tag them and their fans was a little bit weird?' - Specifically, the part about tagging their fans. Is this a typo? As far as I'm aware, it's not possible to tag fans on Facebook. 

[Stadler]

Yes, using AI and reusing art work out of pure laziness are telltale signs of someone being a hack, regardless of their past work. He did it without AI in the past, why not now? And don't start with the nuggets shit. It's clearly AI, at least parts of it.

Eddie Van Halen is a hack?   News to me.

Hey, look, you can define that however you want. If that's your definition, so be it. I'm not at all trying to talk you out of that.  I'm just saying, not everyone has to or should think that way. I don't.

I also think that if the band is offering an art book, then the general consumer's idea is that this is art work that is made for the album it is accompanying. If this is not the case it needs to be divulged before buying. You can say that the market will decide, yadda yadda yadda, but the fact is that Hugh Syme is running a borderline scam, and this should not be allowed on the market in the first place.

Hard disagree. HARD disagree. 

What if Petrucci just randomly put one of the LTE or Terminal Velocity tracks on Parasomnia under a new title and didn't disclose that this is a reused song? You would feel pretty burnt right? Regardless of that song's quality. I'm making this analogy to make the point that it doesn't really matter if the other band has exclusive rights to it, it's still an extremely shitty business practice. If Dream Theater cares about their fans, they need to make sure that this does NOT happen again. How they go about that is up to them, but the easiest way is to stop working with this dude. 

Depends; is it meant to deceive me, or is it a statement in and of itself?  Was it a contractual thing (like "Taylor's Versions"?)  I don't know why, I don't know where it comes from, but I'm telling you I don't jump to these conclusions.  Maybe I'm just not that invested in my bands (I don't think THAT is true). 

I've said this across multiple threads in multiple contexts: I want to see what the artist gives me. I'm not "presupposing" anything.  Unless and until it becomes something deceitful, I'm open.

Ozzy and the Daisley thing.  Some people reacted like someone pissed on their kids' leg, or shot someone in cold blood. It was what it was. I knew first listen it wasn't the same tracks; I didn't like them, not because of the 'deceit' of recording over them - Ozzy can do what he wants, they're his songs - it was because I knew every note, every accent from listening to those records for hours with headphones.

Van Halen has three album covers that reuse other works (Fair Warning, III and A Different Kind Of Truth).  So?   

Suggesting that Dream Theater stop working with the guy is hardly social media bullying. It's asking the band to do the morally correct thing, given the situation.

Your morals aren't my morals, and they may not be the BAND'S morals. Putting them in the position of "having" to act even if it's not against their morals is the very definition of bullying.   

Look, I don't want to say much more, and I recognize there are people that disagree with me, and there are people here with a vested (maybe financial) interstate's in how this plays out, but suffice that I don't think this is a moral problem at all. "Unfortunate", maybe "awkward", but not "immoral". 

[Stadler]

The ironic thing is that we are on the forum of a band whose member literally dealt with massive comments on the internet asking for him to be replaced. And he was. And Stadler never worried about it. 

Did we talk about this?

If you're referring to the member I think you're referring to, I was very against that. I've been very outspoken about the dickheadedness (is that a word?) of much of the DT fanbase. If I posted every time someone said something I thought was inappropriate or out of line, I'd have to get a secretary.  Thankfully its' not too bad here, but I don't even go on the Facebook pages much for that very reason. 

I was also very outspoken in the discussions over the recent change, making very much the same points about speculation and inserting one's personal 'morals' where they don't belong. 

I'm a lot of things, but "inconsistent" isn't one of them.

[Stadler]

We can argue/debate the merits of doing so (and it will be different for each party, for various reasons) but the fact remains, going to social media BY DEFINITION changes the nature of the resolution.

If I am in a dispute with someone, and no one else is involved, and no one else knows about it, then the resolution need only be acceptable to the other party and me. It doesn't have to be technically "legally" correct (though it can't be against the law), it doesn't have to be contractually correct (we can agree to change the contract), it doesn't have to be morally correct (morals don't have to play into it at all), it doesn't have to be correct in terms of public perception... we just have to agree.  There need not be any fault admitted, or acknowledged; there doesn't even need to be any agreement on the basic facts of the matter, only that the settlement be acceptable to each side.

If I am in a dispute with someone, and now social media is involved, it narrows the possibilities of settlement significantly, because I now have to account for the public perception of all facets of the dispute, and how that will play in the public realm, and what the consequences of that might be. For example, I might have to demand that fault be acknowledged (or refuse on my part to acknowledge fault, even if the settlement seems to accept it). Even if the parties agree to keep the negotiations confidential, it still might sway the outcome, for fear of losing that confidentiality.

My opinion only, but in my experience, social media in a dispute is akin to a thumb on the scale, and my opinion only, but in my experience the thumb on the scale rarely results in an outcome that is fair to both sides.

[Skeever]

I have to be a little careful in what I say around this issue, and I would certainly like to say more. It's just that now is not an appropriate time.

My main reason for tagging DT was to raise awareness on their end; what had happened to me had also happened to them. Certainly, at no point did I call them out or accuse them of any wrongdoing. There are dozens and dozens of posts where I very explicitly stated as much.

To be honest, it never even occurred to me that their fans might, as you said, feel like their favourite band is under attack. Perhaps that was because I didn't attack them on any level.

Although, I don't understand what you mean by the middle part of this sentence: 'I think the initial response to tag DT and tag them and their fans was a little bit weird?' - Specifically, the part about tagging their fans. Is this a typo? As far as I'm aware, it's not possible to tag fans on Facebook. 

Seriously dude... say no more. I get it. I was just trying to explain why it might have FELT like the band were being accused of something, or like it was now the band's job to help fix an issue that might not bother them. But the point is moot, because it obviously did bother MP enough to respond. Just hope it gets made right for you.

[Herrick]

I mean, that's pretty fucking slack for a glitch like that to end up on the official artwork.  No one proof reading anything these days, jeez.  I know it's nothing new and not the first time but you think people would learn.

Maybe they use the A.I. to proof read.

And gborland's post 232 made Herrick LoL in real life. Thanks for that 

[Progmaniac1988]

Madone... this topic has really escalated since my last time viewing it lol

[wolfking]

Maybe they use the A.I. to proof read.

And gborland's post 232 made Herrick LoL in real life. Thanks for that 

 

[CraftyCaleb2483]

Maybe they use the A.I. to proof read.

I mean, it's a possibility  

[BlackInk]

Way late to this part of the discussion, but there's no way the Parasomnia cover is a single prompted image, right? I thought it was a bunch of different, either AI or stock, pit together in the usual Syme style.

Don't know if that makes much difference, but I would be surprised if something like the cover is generated from a single prompt.

[Orion - Music]

Way late to this part of the discussion, but there's no way the Parasomnia cover is a single prompted image, right? I thought it was a bunch of different, either AI or stock, pit together in the usual Syme style.

Don't know if that makes much difference, but I would be surprised if something like the cover is generated from a single prompt.

Someone with more knowledge than I can jump in here, but I think Photoshop has generative AI features built into it now.

IF he is using AI, it could be that it's a blend of that and some intervention.

[Northern Lion]

Way late to this part of the discussion, but there's no way the Parasomnia cover is a single prompted image, right? I thought it was a bunch of different, either AI or stock, pit together in the usual Syme style.

Don't know if that makes much difference, but I would be surprised if something like the cover is generated from a single prompt.

AI might have been used, but it has Hugh's style all over it. Definitely not from a single prompt, I'd bet my retirement fund on it.

[TheHoveringSojourn808]

Someone with more knowledge than I can jump in here, but I think Photoshop has generative AI features built into it now.

IF he is using AI, it could be that it's a blend of that and some intervention.

If you ever signed another contract with Huge Sign do you think you would ask him to add a "no repeats, no AI" cause to the find print?

BTW i've been listening to your album over and over again, alongside my endless Parasomnia spins. the two albums feels connected in a way to me that goes beyond them having the same artwork! I love them  both!

[cramx3]

Someone with more knowledge than I can jump in here, but I think Photoshop has generative AI features built into it now.

IF he is using AI, it could be that it's a blend of that and some intervention.

Definitely going to be many prompts and then I would assume manual edits as well.

[ZirconBlue]

And don't start with the nuggets shit

There are intentional nuggets in the art, though.  One of the pieces has the BC&SL cover art as a framed picture on the wall, for example.  Which demonstrates that even if DT bought already-existing art, he obviously did at least some customizing of it for them.

[ZirconBlue]

Only in DT forums would we be arguing about fingers on a hand and what it means 

I absolutely love this place, and all you really awesome folks who make it so entertaining!

It's like someone had their dad murdered by a six-fingered man, or something.

[Stairwaytoheaven]

🧐🧐🧐

[Orion - Music]

If you ever signed another contract with Huge Sign do you think you would ask him to add a "no repeats, no AI" cause to the find print?

BTW i've been listening to your album over and over again, alongside my endless Parasomnia spins. the two albums feels connected in a way to me that goes beyond them having the same artwork! I love them  both!

I think it's safe to say I won't be working with Hugh again, regardless of anything in writing.

Hopefully the two albums aren't too connected. Before you know it, some Lightbringers riffs will be turning up in the background of Bend the Clock 

[hefdaddy42]