Hugh Syme is at it again

[DragonAttack]

So much for advances in technology....
   

[SeRoX]

AI wrote this country song (or so I've read). It's not bad considering the current state of the genre.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CORANvT8l9A

Better than Grammy Winner Album of the year Beyonce - Cowboy Carter. Shitiest country album ever.

[Stadler]

You think it's likely that the band said "Give us original artwork that throws in nuggets to prior albums" and Syme FORGOT to give original artwork but REMEMBERED to insert the nuggets into the unoriginal artwork?

That isn't what I said, though.

Full disclosure: I have no idea what ANY of the conversations were.  But it's just as likely as "Hugh is a doddering old plagiarist with a blatant disregard for all normal conventions of creativity" that the dialogue was "hey, here are my initial ideas; we can change them however you want" and the band was like "well, make them darker" and he was like "okay; still rough, I'd like another shot to clean it up" and the band was like "nah, nah leave it in. It's creepy and fits the mood."    Or any variation thereof.  "hey, here are my initial ideas; we can change them however you want" and the band was like "well, make them darker" and he was like "okay; still rough, but usable for the digital releases, because the resolution is such that it's not discernible.  I can fix it before the final print run" and the band was like "nah, nah leave it in. It's creepy and fits the mood."  Or maybe it was a variation on that that went unspoken.

All I'm saying is, if you have NO information, you have to at least consider options that don't fit your own personal narrative that I believe - EVEN WITH EVERYTHING WE THINK WE KNOW - to be a little on the reactionary side. THINK whatever you want; it's a free country (I guess, depending on your country, and your definition of "free").  But once we get into the realm of actually imposing consequences, unfortunately we have to be right, or at least consistent with ALL the facts, even the ones we don't know first hand.

[hefdaddy42]

But we don't have "no" information.

[ZirconBlue]

Okay but six fingers can't be a nugget just because DT has an album with a number 6 in the title,

It wouldn't be "just because DT has an album with the number 6 in the title".  The SDoIT interior artwork actually includes a six fingered hand.




Dream Theater - Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence on 69's Blog by __ i.©.e™__, on Flickr

[Stadler]

I get, and I respect, where you are coming from.  But I don't completely agree with your conclusion.  Someone can have an incredible artistic vision of what something looks like that the "best" artists couldn't/didn't come up with, but simply not have the physical artistic skills to bring it to fruition on their own.  In the "old days," someone in that position might find an artist they believed could bring the vision to fruition and "commission" the piece of art.  While it's true that we generally only remember and give credit to the artist who actually painted/sculpted/etc. and not to the visionary that actually conceived and commissioned it, I don't really see the visionary as somehow lesser.  I mean, sure, it's a matter of degree, and I'm not saying the visionary is or should be put on the same level as the painter.  I'm just saying that I don't see it as being as "black and white" as you make it to be.

Well, I think there's an argument that the 'vision' is sometimes as important or more important.  We think of masters, because they've transcended history by being both visionaries and executors.  But what's more important: the person that conceived the iPod, or the person that screwed/soldered/glued it all together?

Bob Dylan is CLEARLY more "visionary" than "executor".  Isn't one of the knocks on those shows like "American Idol" that it's merely karaoke? 

[Stadler]

But we don't have "no" information.

We have a statement on the use of AI and the six fingers?  If so, I stand corrected.

[hefdaddy42]

We have a statement on the use of AI and the six fingers?  If so, I stand corrected.

No.  But we have statements from 3 parties involved that Syme didn't use original art for DT.

[Stadler]

No.  But we have statements from 3 parties involved that Syme didn't use original art for DT.

Ok.  I don't think that's up for debate at this point.  That doesn't solve every issue though.  That he reused a drawing - for any reason - doesn't bear on "nuggetz", even a little bit. 

[cramx3]

Looks like we got a bunch of Hugh Symes in this thread all of a sudden 

[Stadler]

Looks like we got a bunch of Hugh Symes in this thread all of a sudden 

[TAC]

I don't see someone who lacks the actual artistic talent themselves as being capable of having an "incredible artistic vision."  They might be able to get the AI to spit out something that they think "looks cool."  That's as far as it goes.

Why not?

I can come up with the greatest idea for a movie or a plotline, yet lack to skill to craft a screenplay by myself.

I've seen "Original Concept by..." in the credits of movies haven't I?

I get, and I respect, where you are coming from.  But I don't completely agree with your conclusion.  Someone can have an incredible artistic vision of what something looks like that the "best" artists couldn't/didn't come up with, but simply not have the physical artistic skills to bring it to fruition on their own.  In the "old days," someone in that position might find an artist they believed could bring the vision to fruition and "commission" the piece of art.  While it's true that we generally only remember and give credit to the artist who actually painted/sculpted/etc. and not to the visionary that actually conceived and commissioned it, I don't really see the visionary as somehow lesser.  I mean, sure, it's a matter of degree, and I'm not saying the visionary is or should be put on the same level as the painter.  I'm just saying that I don't see it as being as "black and white" as you make it to be.

I agree 100%.

One is typing an idea, the other is executing it yourself. I'm struggling to see how this is hard to understand? Putting ink to paper is art.  Typing what you want, is not.  Copy pasting images in a way you want is still significantly closer to putting ink to paper and still considered art even if the images used aren't original. You still create the piece yourself.

Well, you didn't create it yourself because you used stock images. Arranging pictures that someone else took can now be considered true art? I AM willing to accept that, but to me, writing the prompts are akin to the arrangement of images.

[ariich]

Well, you didn't create it yourself because you used stock images. Arranging pictures that someone else took can now be considered true art? I AM willing to accept that, but to me, writing the prompts are akin to the arrangement of images.

I pretty much agree. We accept collages as a form of art because we grew up with them. But why should that be the line between art and not? I'm sure when they first started getting made people talked about them the same way we talk about AI art now.  

[Dedalus]

You think it's likely that the band said "Give us original artwork that throws in nuggets to prior albums" and Syme FORGOT to give original artwork but REMEMBERED to insert the nuggets into the unoriginal artwork?

A low likelihood hypothesis, I would say.

[Stadler]

You think it's likely that the band said "Give us original artwork that throws in nuggets to prior albums" and Syme FORGOT to give original artwork but REMEMBERED to insert the nuggets into the unoriginal artwork?

I missed this the first time, but you are being WAY more literal and black and white than I am.

One, to answer your question on that specific point, maybe not "likely"; I'm not putting a probability on it, but certainly reasonably possible, because they are two different processes and involve almost entirely different concepts and concerns.  So yeah.

But even if you don't, the process doesn't have to be so linear, A B C D. "Here's a drawing". "Great, add a finger".  "Okay, here's round two."  "Great. Make sure the shadow is fucked up, wrong direction, the whole nine yards."   I'm writing "nah, nah, leave it in" on purpose; that's the intro to "Black Country Woman" when Led Zeppelin was recording outside and a plane flew over.  The engineer asked about taking that out, and Plant said "leave it in".  They didn't call the English equivalent of the FAA and plan that flight.  They didn't look at flight schedules and plan to be outside.  It was a happy accident that he, Plant, the singer, liked.   

The Beatles; the splice on Strawberry Fields - which arguably makes the song - was a happy accident.   Jerry Cantrell did an interview with Rick Beato and he specifically noted how many great moments are about recognizing something great that you never intended and capitalizing on it.

There may not even have BEEN a conversation between Syme and the band on that point.  Hugh: "Hey, band, here are drafts; let me know if you have any comments."   Band (to themselves): "Wow, this is good; it's weird, but good. Hey, you know how Melody is always joking around about the six-finger AI shit and your daughter is always saying "our dad's did that back when it wasn't cool!" on Six Degrees?  Here it is again!  That lazy fuck is using AI, but it works!"    Band (to Hugh): "We're good; no comments." 

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not saying this IS what happened. I'm saying that there's a world of possibilities, and even if you rule out the wildly ridiculous, there's still a number of different variations on the theme that could be what actually happened. I'm not ruling out yours, I'm saying that we don't know.  I don't know why you keep ruling out mine in favor of the "Hugh's a doddering old fool" narrative.

[gborland]

I don't know why you keep ruling out mine in favor of the "Hugh's a doddering old fool" narrative.

Well, he is a doddering old fool.

[hefdaddy42]

I care more about probabilities than possibilities. Given what we actually know, both about this situation and past situations, my perspective seems most probable. 

[CraftyCaleb2483]

It wouldn't be "just because DT has an album with the number 6 in the title".  The SDoIT interior artwork actually includes a six fingered hand.




Dream Theater - Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence on 69's Blog by __ i.©.e™__, on Flickr

Now that is interesting

[MirrorMask]

Well, if at all, that Six Degrees image is a prime example of how an artwork is deliberately made to look like that on purpouse, in an ahestetically pleasant and coherent way, and how the difference with AI hands should be even clearer now.

[Northern Lion]

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!

[Stadler]

I care more about probabilities than possibilities. Given what we actually know, both about this situation and past situations, my perspective seems most probable.

But that's not what I'm saying. I don't KNOW about the "probabilities" (honestly, don't really care, but that's not a shot at you).  I've come to peace in this world that there is far more I don't know than I do, and I just don't really concern myself with what I don't know if it doesn't affect me or my family directly.  What I care about is what happens here anytime some big event happens. This exact thing happened on Mike's return. EXACTLY.  "Mangini was fired!"  "Portnoy bullied his way back into the band!"  "They fucked over Mangini!"  "James must secretly be pissed!" More than a year later, countless interviews, and we're STILL not privy to an exact picture. But some of the speculation was, I believe, over the line, and potentially hurtful to the parties involved. ALSO not something we can know, but why say anything at all if there's a chance of alienating or hurting people you supposedly care about?

Some people - not saying you - get a narrative in their head, and from that point on, all that seems to matter is their 'feelings'.

Just as a general question, what does it hurt to leave options open? Unless you're one of the specific, direct participants, why is it so hard to just say "huh, interesting.  I don't know what happened, but it's fascinating nonetheless!"? 

[hefdaddy42]

But that's not what I'm saying. I don't KNOW about the "probabilities" (honestly, don't really care, but that's not a shot at you).  I've come to peace in this world that there is far more I don't know than I do, and I just don't really concern myself with what I don't know if it doesn't affect me or my family directly.  What I care about is what happens here anytime some big event happens. This exact thing happened on Mike's return. EXACTLY.  "Mangini was fired!"  "Portnoy bullied his way back into the band!"  "They fucked over Mangini!"  "James must secretly be pissed!" More than a year later, countless interviews, and we're STILL not privy to an exact picture. But some of the speculation was, I believe, over the line, and potentially hurtful to the parties involved. ALSO not something we can know, but why say anything at all if there's a chance of alienating or hurting people you supposedly care about?

Some people - not saying you - get a narrative in their head, and from that point on, all that seems to matter is their 'feelings'.

Just as a general question, what does it hurt to leave options open? Unless you're one of the specific, direct participants, why is it so hard to just say "huh, interesting.  I don't know what happened, but it's fascinating nonetheless!"? 

Not sure what you think is happening here. Contrary to popular belief, I am not the Grand High Poobah of the Universe. I don't KNOW.  I know what seems likely and what doesn't seem likely. Options ARE open. 

But not many. 

[Stadler]

Not sure what you think is happening here. Contrary to popular belief, I am not the Grand High Poobah of the Universe. I don't KNOW.  I know what seems likely and what doesn't seem likely. Options ARE open.

But not many.

What is happening here? Sounds like judge, jury and executioner.  Not by you, necessarily, but generally. 

You're 100% correct: you - we - DON'T know.  That's my only point.  There's a lot of people writing a lot of things here that don't sound like any options are open. Probabilities are fine when making decisions moving forward, but they are pretty shitty when trying to deduce what ACTUALLY happened. If probabilities were determinative, we'd have watched the Chiefs hoisting the Lombardi after beating the Lions 27-25 on a last minute field goal from Butker.  Sorry to mix my metaphors, but this is why we play the games.  Any given Sunday.

[Dedalus]

What if Stadler was hired by Hugh to defend him here on the forums?

It doesn't seem likely, but I'm not going to close that option.

[Stadler]

What if Stadler was hired by Hugh to defend him here on the forums?

It doesn't seem likely, but I'm not going to close that option.

And you shouldn't, until you get facts that close that option for good. 

Which is going to happen right now:  never spoke to Hugh Syme or anyone in his organization in my life.  I have no affiliation with him whatsoever.  I don't think I've even seen a picture of him.

[Northern Lion]

What if Stadler was hired by Hugh to defend him here on the forums?

It doesn't seem likely, but I'm not going to close that option.

Hey, don't leave me out man. Hugh might have hired me too!

[Dedalus]

And you shouldn't, until you get facts that close that option for good. 

Which is going to happen right now:  never spoke to Hugh Syme or anyone in his organization in my life.  I have no affiliation with him whatsoever.  I don't think I've even seen a picture of him.

I understand. But, well... you have to agree with me that there is a possibility that you are lying about not knowing him. It is a possible option, don't you think?

I don't feel safe closing that option.

[Dedalus]

Hey, don't leave me out man. Hugh might have hired me too!

It's a possibility.

[Stadler]

I understand. But, well... you have to agree with me that there is a possibility that you are lying about not knowing him. It is a possible option, don't you think?

I don't feel safe closing that option.

I (think I) get your underlying point and I'm not going to bite. Yeah, you DO have to consider it. It IS possible I'm lying (I am not, however). And you get to evaluate my truthfulness (or lack thereof).  And part of doing that is evaluating what I have to gain or lose by lying or telling the truth, and you have no idea.

You're missing a BIG part of my point though:  I'm not talking about the evaluation of facts. I was clear, that you do you and not only would I never stop you, I'd FIGHT for you to be able to draw your conclusions.  Why I make these points is NOT to be argumentative or contrarian (like some people mistakenly think), or argue a case for one side (actually it's the opposite, but let's leave that for now), it's to be a continual reminder that SOME conclusions breed actions, and actions have consequences.  You can feel free to think I'm telling the truth, or telling lies.  Nothing I can or should do about that.  BUT you start telling my boss I AM a liar, or you start putting out on Facebook that I AM a liar, You had BETTER be right.  Not "think you're right", not "probabilities are in my favor that I might be right", you BEST be ACTUALLY RIGHT. I shouldn't lose my job, or potential clients, or whatever, because of your personal "probabilities" based on some set of indeterminately incomplete information.

[elfriedejelinek]

let's all just agree that they shouldn't work with this hack again

[Stadler]

let's all just agree that they shouldn't work with this hack again

I can't tell if you're joking or not; but that's exactly what I'm saying we shouldn't do. If you don't want to work with him, or think him a hack, have at it. Don't work with him.  If DT choose that, path, it's on them. But if they choose to, that's also on them and they should be free to do so; sure, you're free to buy whatever you want, but I find it a bit unfair to try to bully people into seeing things your way; seems like an unfair punishment to them for what?  Picking artwork they like?  The market will ultimately decide all this, but let the marketplace do it's work without placing the thumb on the scale that is social media bullying.

I personally do not think he's a hack (he's got one of my favorite covers of all time), and I think even without the subject drawing, the work on Parasomnia is a monumental work.  I LOVE the nuggets, I LOVE the vibe, I LOVE the emotions that those drawings trigger in relation to the songs. 

[Dedalus]

I (think I) get your underlying point and I'm not going to bite. Yeah, you DO have to consider it. It IS possible I'm lying (I am not, however). And you get to evaluate my truthfulness (or lack thereof).  And part of doing that is evaluating what I have to gain or lose by lying or telling the truth, and you have no idea.

You're missing a BIG part of my point though:  I'm not talking about the evaluation of facts. I was clear, that you do you and not only would I never stop you, I'd FIGHT for you to be able to draw your conclusions.  Why I make these points is NOT to be argumentative or contrarian (like some people mistakenly think), or argue a case for one side (actually it's the opposite, but let's leave that for now), it's to be a continual reminder that SOME conclusions breed actions, and actions have consequences.  You can feel free to think I'm telling the truth, or telling lies.  Nothing I can or should do about that.  BUT you start telling my boss I AM a liar, or you start putting out on Facebook that I AM a liar, You had BETTER be right.  Not "think you're right", not "probabilities are in my favor that I might be right", you BEST be ACTUALLY RIGHT. I shouldn't lose my job, or potential clients, or whatever, because of your personal "probabilities" based on some set of indeterminately incomplete information.

Well, but I could be one of the potential client.

So, how could I decide if I should trust you?

By the way, today I opened the door to my house to two people carrying a washing machine that I bought. I didn't KNOW they were trustworthy, but I thought they were, because I was expecting a washing machine. On the other hand, it could be that someone hacked me and knew I was expecting a washing machine and that it would be a great way to make me innocently open my door without questioning. Look at how many possibilities!

Anyway, I decided, without being completely sure, that I should choose one of the possibilities (they were trustworthy people) and I made the decision to open the door to my house. If I made this decision for something serious (like opening the door to my house), simply based on what I judged to be most likely (they were trustworthy), why wouldn't I do the same for things that aren't serious enough (like commenting on the DTF)?

[elfriedejelinek]

I can't tell if you're joking or not; but that's exactly what I'm saying we shouldn't do. If you don't want to work with him, or think him a hack, have at it. Don't work with him.  If DT choose that, path, it's on them. But if they choose to, that's also on them and they should be free to do so; sure, you're free to buy whatever you want, but I find it a bit unfair to try to bully people into seeing things your way; seems like an unfair punishment to them for what?  Picking artwork they like?  The market will ultimately decide all this, but let the marketplace do it's work without placing the thumb on the scale that is social media bullying.

I personally do not think he's a hack (he's got one of my favorite covers of all time), and I think even without the subject drawing, the work on Parasomnia is a monumental work.  I LOVE the nuggets, I LOVE the vibe, I LOVE the emotions that those drawings trigger in relation to the songs. 

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.

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.

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. 

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.

[Dedalus]

Suggesting that Dream Theater stop working with the guy is hardly social media bullying.

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. 

[nobloodyname]

Saw this thread had reached nine pages. Wondered how. Popped in. Ah, right. That's how  

I saw a meme yesterday, along the lines of, "now let's read the comments and see what the experts have to say"