Neat new version of the Octavarium art by a JP forum guy

[Awake]

Better than the original, methinks!

http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~alexkr/octcover2.jpg

Originally posted: http://www.petrucciforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20868&page=19&pp=10

[keythief]

yes....much cooler...even fixed the position of the ball to be correct angle....I like the logo on the horizon and getting rid of the banner look at the bottom...making it a fade instead...very nice....someone should fwd this to the people in charge and have them look at it...while I have always liked Hugh Symes' work...the cover art does seem a bit "undeveloped"...hopefully some more attention will/was given to it before press time...

[lighthouse]

yeah....way better.....but I would take out the moon......doesn´t look right at all....still don´t like the "Octavarium" font

Juan Pablo

[Awake]

yes....much cooler...even fixed the position of the ball to be correct angle....I like the logo on the horizon and getting rid of the banner look at the bottom...making it a fade instead...very nice....someone should fwd this to the people in charge and have them look at it... hopefully some more attention will/was given to it before press time...I agree with that. I'm trying to figure out to whom to credit it, though...

In the open source world, you post your work, and it's then subjected to peer review by numerous people, many of whom have valid ideas on how to improve your idea, because they have a different perspective. It would be mightily impressive for DT to be the first band to "get" this concept and apply it to their cover art, because the currently "official" artwork is - while a really neat idea, and already superior to any cover they've had since FII - seems very rough, like a concept drawing rather than a finished artwork.

[Georges]

I think this version of the cover is far is more consistent in itself. There are no more those clear separations. It's less sterile than the original. The idea of the majesty logo as a falling sun is quite original.

However, in the end whatever pops up as being the final version, I'll accept it.

The most disappointing cover artwork I have ever seen of DT was Falling Into Infinity - taking away the DT logo was a mistake at that time, and it did not do the music a favour because the music of FII was amazing and still is - what people (and probably the DT musicians themselves) probably do not like about that era was the fact that DT appeared to be progressively commercialized.

So any cover art work which uses the good ole DT logo will always be satisfactory for me. In the end, what counts IS the music. As always it will require 5-10 complete listenings to get accustomed to the new sound and to finally conclude it to be the best DT album ever, for the DT fans' mind is as always spoilt with the past ideas. The best is not to expect anything, not to read anything about the new album, not to download the MP video, no nothing.

[Awake]

The most disappointing cover artwork I have ever seen of DT was Falling Into Infinity - taking away the DT logo was a mistake at that time, and it did not do the music a favourI disagree absolutely with this. First, the FII cover did include the Majesty symbol, it just missed the "real" DT logo, and I remember there being a petition on the Ytsejam list at the time to restore the "real" logo. Second, IMO, FII remains the best cover art DT have ever had, bar none.

##EDIT

I knew I had this somewhere:
http://63.134.130.107/fiic-small.png
This is from my "other" copy of FII. ;)

##END EDIT

FII was a very classy, prog-ish cover, IMO, which accurately reflected the content of the album. I strongly disagree with those who say that FII is a poor album or that it's "excessively commercial"; I think it's simply a more classic proggy DT album. I would contend that, if you think FII is commercial, you have a warped view of what has constituted "commercial" since about 1978, and further, that TrOT was far more commercial, in 2003's market, than FII was in 1997's, just as SFaM was in 1999's.

For the most part, I think that FII remains, to the more technical/metal DT fans, exactly what TrOT is and is likely to remain for the prog/melodic DT fans: the band's perigee. I remember very clearly the treatment that FII received on the Ytsejam list when it was released, and it wasn't pretty. Being more on the prog/melodic side, I regard it as being an excellent album, even with its faults; the main problem with FII, in my view, is not what's on the album, it's what was left off the album. Had it been a been a double album - with Raise the Knife, Where are you Now, Speak to Me and The Way it Used to Be - had Burning my Soul not drifted off into mid-tempo mush, and had it not substituted the yawnsome sub-Crush-era Bon Jovi You Not Me for the excellent Tambu-era Toto-ish You Or Me, FII could easily be my pick for my favorite DT album. The production was the best they've ever had, and even without KevMo, the songwriting they did for (if not necessarily on) that album surpasses anything they've written since, IMO.

[King_Ellesar]

ehh, i think the origional is better....

it's night time in the sky, yet the grass is still green as if it were day...

also dont really like the fourth ball being a globe.

[TheMagician]

There's some really cool concepts in this - unfortunately i think it is too busy, and trying to do too much. The original is brighter and cleaner. The idea of the globe as one of the balls is nice, but without hearing the album, possibly not relevant. The stars look cool, but I think the original was set in a nice summers day rather than at night/dusk. I prefer the black banner rather than fading at the bottom - makes it a distinct part of the design and leaves the whole thing looking lighter. My impression from the cover is it is going to be a more relaxing and uplifting album. The stars and dusk imply a different kind of theme although I cant put my finger on exactly what that is right now.

[whitelightening]

Follow the link and compare:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0002YLDRS/qid%3D1114073719/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/002-9352402-3034408

Isn't the Octavarium cover pretty much the exact same idea as FatesWarningX?

[Awake]

Follow the link and compare:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0002YLDRS/qid%3D1114073719/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/002-9352402-3034408

Isn't the Octavarium cover pretty much the exact same idea as FatesWarningX?
Uh...Well...No, not really:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0002YLDRS.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[maJ estY]

Well, I don't compare the cover with any other, but you already have probably read a couple of jokes referring to the name "Octavarium", because it sounds similar to Spock's Beard's last album "Octane". - And when I first saw that cover, I thought this even looks a bit like Spock's Beard's Day For Night cover. :D

[Georges]

I disagree absolutely with this. First, the FII cover did include the Majesty symbol, it just missed the "real" DT logo.

I never said that it would miss the majesty symbol, I was talking about the DT logo. Moreover, your emotions seem to have blurred your eyes, for I have never written that the FII music or the production would be bad or commercial. With commercial, I referred to the cover art, not to the music. Read my posts twice next time please, it'll be clearer for you ...

End off-topic.

[Awake]

I never said that it would miss the majesty symbol, I was talking about the DT logo.Good call on the logo / symbol. I mis-read that.

With commercial, I referred to the cover art, not to the music.

Well,
what people (and probably the DT musicians themselves) probably do not like about that era was the fact that DT appeared to be progressively commercialized.I don't think that sounds like you're talking about the cover art. First, because I don't recall anyone moaning about the cover art being "commercial", but rather moaning (without any justification, IMO) that the music was "commercialized". Second because I'm not sure how you reach the conclusion that the FII cover is "commercialized", irrespective of whether I agree with that assesment, whcih clearly I do not. In what way is it "commercial"? Are the two people on the platforms Britney and Christina, perhaps?

And even if we're talking covers not content, again, I would contend that the subsequent three albums have very much more "commercial" covers, where "commercial" is defined as being resonant with then-prevalent mainstream styles. In fact, this new cover is probably the single furthest departure from "mainstream"-looking covers since FII.

And, naturally, I hope that a more prog cover foreshadows a more prog album. A cross between LTE2, Transatlantic-with-better-guitars and Listen would be very nice. :p

[kevmo_fan]

Wow, I reckon that one is really ace! Should be used as the original IMO... the only thing that doesn't do it for me is that the stars and moon look too fake... to CG'd... they look like generic photoshop brushes to me. If they were slightly more realistic, that would be damn PERFECT!

[whitelightening]

Uh...Well...No, not really:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0002YLDRS.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg


Landscape, two figures, barred title, focal object. Maybe I just look at things abstractly, but if you flip the covers, they have the same idea. I never said they are the same or look the same.

[Spock's Theater]

Cool cover by the JP forum guy! I think it's somewhat better than the original but both versions are nice.

[Piranha]

^ Me too. Except the first and third balls are still the same balls but flipped.. I dunno why it bothers me that much