Talk:Tool (band)

jambi/iambs

So, I changed the section that mentions Jambi's use of iambs. First off, iambs are extremely common in English, so their use is not in anyway inherently relevant. Sure, the name fits, but let's not give too much weight to the presence of iambs, as they are by far the most common of all feet to appear in both normal speech and poetry. Additionally, I know that BMB says in the newsletter that is referenced that the use of iambs described in the related question is "intetional", but the scansion presented by that fan is clearly inaccurate, so that doesn't really carry much weight either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmcpheezy (talk • contribs) 21:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mrmcpheezy, thanks for your contribution. I tried to shorten your addition a bit, I hope you don't mind. Johnnyw talk 15:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Along the same lines, someone probably ought to delete the bit about playing in 6.5/8. I suppose if that's a direct quote, it's reasonable to leave it, but really, it doesn't make a whit of sense. It doesn't really help to describe their music in any way — it simply betrays a complete misunderstanding of the function and purpose of time signatures. Maybe he's trying to say they have passages in 13/16. Fine. Time signatures aren't some sort of advanced calculus; their purpose is to clarify, not confuse, regardless of how avant garde the speaker thinks he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.164.108 (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Is Tool industrial rock?

Is Tool industrial rock? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.27.77 (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall having seen any sources that refer to them as such. We would need some reliable sources to verify that. لennavecia 06:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry. It would be cool if they were (it would add an extra creepiness to their existing creepiness), but they don't have much of an industrial edge. --86.0.183.95 (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Some fans say that they are generally industrial (rock/metal), although others would just say that they're generally progressive. Or to be generic, just a basic rock band. - GunMetal Angel 20:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The band's sound is eclectic, thus it would is inhibiting to narrow their classification much beyond Rock music. --Rampantidiocy (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I honestly, this is just an opinion, beielve that the progressive genre is highley misconsepted. I beilevet hat progressive shouldnt be a genre. Cus progressive to me, means something that eitehr gets better or changes over its life. For example, to me please dont site this im only stating an opinon, im not trying to change anything. metallica has had a different style and sound on almost every album, so they in my eyes could be considered progressive. --JBrocksthehouse (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

References

With the delinking of dates and subsequent changes to templates, along with some new ref additions with slightly different formatting, the references are not currently consistent. I would like to use American English date formatting which would, for example, change ref 1 to ref 2.

Does anyone care if I make this update? لennavecia 06:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Associated acts

According to Template:Infobox_Musical_artist#Associated_acts, most band articles go way overboard on this field. I removed the acts that do not share multiple members, though, perhaps APC should remain, as Howerdel was a guitar tech for Tool... but I'm not sure if that qualifies. Also, should Danny Lohner be added? لennavecia 07:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think if you remove bands that are no longer active (CAD, TeXANS, Tapeworm, Peach) and the ones that have only part time membership (The Melvins, maybe Green Jelly) then that would leave a suitable sized list. In my opinion the list should be APC, Puscifer, Volto!, Pigmy Love Circus and maybe Green Jelly hellboy (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

None of those bands qualify, except for Green Jelly, and perhaps APC and Danny Lohner, as I asked about above. لennavecia 01:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you at all, just making a suggestion as to what I'd consider appropriate bands to be included in this list. hellboy (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

How do they qualify per the MOS standards? It says not to list bands that only share one member. And where is everyone at? It's not like it's a holiday season or anything... >_> Can someone please weigh in on whether or not Howerdel being a guitar tech qualifies APC to be listed?, and if Danny Lohner qualifies as an associated act? If he does, Puscifer would also qualify. لennavecia 19:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I say APC should definitely count, but I don't see why Danny Lohner would. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 00:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

O, right. I forgot. His bio listed Tool as an associated act, but there was nothing to indicate how he had any involvement in anything Tool. I removed it a night or two ago. Disregard that. لennavecia 05:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's what we know so far; we can only add bands if they are actually associated with Tool, so any bands that Tool would have been associated with only once could be removed from the section. APC and Puscifer are probably the only 2 that really qualify, and even then, I'm not too sure about Puscifer. Danny Lohner wouldn't qualify as he's only associated with MJK under APC's work. mÆniac ^Ask! 02:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Awards and nominations section

It says the awards they have been nominated for but not who nominated them. So while it says something like Won award for best metal performance, it doesn't say whether it was a Grammy or an MTV award or whatever. Shouldn't this be changed. I don't know how to fix tables so I'm just leaving it up to someone who can. 98.196.78.26 (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Delayed response. The section is "Grammy awards and nominations". Perhaps it was not titled as such in January. لennavecia 18:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

King Crimson Interview

Does anyone have a new link to the interview with King Crimson? If not we'll have to remove that cited section...

Fixed this. لennavecia 18:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Undertow section

What on Earth is post-Nirvana alternative rock supposed to mean? Nirvana was still active in '93, they released their third full length album, In Utero, several months after the release of Undertow. The Undertow article itself gives a much better description of the mainstream music scene at the time. Fumbingehmer (talk) 08:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Relationship with Rage Against the Machine

This section was added to the article by Huzzad (talk · contribs). I believe it should be discussed first. لennavecia 18:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Relationship with Rage Against the Machine 

The members of Tool have a long history with fellow Los Angeles band Rage Against the Machine. In 1984, Rage's future guitarist, Tom Morello formed a high school band named Electric Sheep with future Tool guitarist Adam Jones playing bass .

Morello would eventually introduce Jones and Maynard James Keenan to to future Tool drummer Danny Carey. "I met Adam through Tom Morello of Rage (Against The Machine). And I was living beside Maynard. I never auditioned for them. I felt kind of sorry for them, because they would invite people over to play, and they wouldn't show up, so I'd fill in" says Carey.

Maynard James Keenan performs in Rage's song Know Your Enemy, supplying vocals for the bridge and subsequent scream. Maynard has often performed this section live at Rage shows

Tom Morello is thanked on the sleeve of Tool's Opiate EP, while Tool is thanked by Rage on their debut album

In 1993, Tool and Rage Against the Machine collaborated on an officiall untitled song for the Judgment Night soundtrack, but were unsatisfied with the final effort, and the song was never released. Part of the song was later re-worked into the Rage song New Millenium Homes from their album The Battle of Los Angeles, however no Tool did not appear in this recording.

While in Tool, Jones continued his high praise of his former band mate, stating in a 2001 Guitar World interview that "I never considered us as innovative. Rage Against the Machine - they're innovative. I can point to a dozen other bands that sound, or try to sound, just like them. No one seems to be trying to sound like us."

Keenan teamed up with Rage's Morello and Brad Wilk, along with bassist Billy Gould of Faith No More to perform a song called "Calling Dr. Love" on the Kiss tribute album Kiss My Ass Album. They are collectively known as Shandi's Addiction.

Keenan appears in a cameo for the 2005 movie Sleeping Dogs Lie in which Rage drummer Brad Wilk has the starring role.

In 2007, Rage's rythm section, bassist Tim Commerford and drummer Brad Wilk teamed up with Keenan to work on his Puscifer project. Keenan said of the collaboration: "They found themselves not working with (singer Chris) Cornell after the last Audioslave record and they wanted to know if I was interested in starting a band. And I said no, I've got this other thing going on and two other bands to boot. But what I suggested to them was that they should start their own band and have me sing a song, and have some other singers sing a song. I think on some level they agreed, and so that's what we kind of did. I went in and we wrote a song together and right now they're currently trying to record that song, and I'll go sing on it." The song eventually became 'Mono Stead' on the album V Is For Vagina.

At the 2007 Bonaroo Festival, Morello joined Tool onstage for a performance of their song Lateralus

Tom Morello's Axis of Justice concert tour has often featured Keenan as a guest performer, most recently in 2008 .

References

Discussion

This seems out of place to me. Tool has long-standing relationships with others as well, and I don't think it's necessary to detail those in such a trivial manner. Likewise, this seems to be giving undue weight to their working relationship with RATM. Thoughts? لennavecia 18:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems a little trivial to me. Trivia disguised as prose. Possibly a dash of original research too. Certainly not appropriate for a featured article. Can maybe make mention of a relationship if there's a decent enough source but not to this degree. Rehevkor ✉ 18:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it deserves a passing note, or - at most - an entire paragraph (preferably with other bands included), but i think it definitely needs at least serious reduction and massive clean up. Certainly an entire section is too much. For the record, Rage Against the Machine, a GA, doesn't even mention Tool. --Evan ¤ Seeds 18:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Tool's rise to fame has a lot to do with Rage. Albeit, this was not mentioned, yet I had more to add to it. Perhaps it seems a little bit like trivia, but the fact remains that these two bands have a very close history, and I felt it worthy of interest. I appreciate that Tool probably have relationships with other bands, but it is unparrelled to the relationship with Rage. As for a dash of original research, every claim there is verifiable. Look it up. If I have not added a reference, I can get one. Rage is mentioned a couple of times in the main article so I thought it prudent to actually catalogue some of that information. Trivia or not, wikipedia is about information, which is what this section is. And there are plenty of trivia sections on other wikipedia articles so it would be hypocritical to remove this because of 'trivia' claims. The fact that the two bands have had a working relationship for over 20 years should merit at least some mention.user:Huzzad 1429, 7 May 2009

I think it's overkill. I think the appropriate notes regarding the relationship with RATM are already adequately covered in the Tool page, and the respective related pages (band members, albums, etc). hellboy (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea, it's undue weight to put a section in the article about this. And I don't believe "Tool's rise to fame has a lot to do with Rage" is entirely accurate. As for trivia sections, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and it's not hypocritical to rid a featured article of trivia just because other articles are still awaiting the removal of trivia. لennavecia 12:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. As someone following both bands over a decade, I have noticed countless times their relationship to each other. As for their rise to fame, perhaps it is debatable, but the members of Tool were introduced to each other by those from Rage, and Rage took them on some of their first tours, including the tour that 'made' them, Lollapalooza. Anyway, your points are fair and I am not going to contest it. I just thought it was worthy for addition. :) Huzzad (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not make it a separate article and link to it? 128.211.249.239 (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Date linking

In the references, some of the dates are linked, others are unlinked in ISO format, and yet others are unlinked and written out. I'd like to go through and make this consistent throughout. My preferred format is unlinked and written out. Does anyone object to this? لennavecia 19:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

1990 onward

So, "1990 – present" has been changed to "1990 onward", and has been cited to WP:MOSBD. I've not seen this in an article before, and when I read the section in the MOS about this, I don't believe this is the proper usage for the infobox. The section reads "The form since 1996 should be used in favor of 1996–present in article text and infoboxes." Before that it describes how "present" is a constantly moving target while "onward" isn't... whatever. I don't see the point, but either way, I still believe that, according to the MOS, it should be "since 1990". Thoughts? لennavecia 20:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"1990—<!-- As of May 14, 2009 -->" would be my preferred construction. It's not vulnerable to becoming counterfactually obsolete, not ambiguous, and adding "onward/present" is redundant in any case.  Skomorokh  06:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I prefer this alternative to what is presently in the article, and it conforms to the guideline. Anyone else care to weigh in? لennavecia 19:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As long as it follows the guideline I'm good. And as a featured article it should follow the MOS as closely as possible. Rehevkor ✉ 19:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and changed it, but if anyone else wants to weigh in, please do. لennavecia 20:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSBD? Dates of birth and death? Who was born in 1990? What does this have to do with this article?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)?

Scroll down a section.  Skomorokh  20:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah. (I feel like Butt-head now) :)--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I thought the same thing first time I followed the shortcut.  Skomorokh  20:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Typo in sound clip Schism

In the lateralus section, the sound clip for schism contains a typo in the word "signature" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.216.236 (talk) 09:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Then fix it. - GunMetal Angel 20:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Why does the Lachrymology page redirect to Tool? This should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.156.57 (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Aenima was released on vinyl PREVIOUS to the CD format.

My source for this is my personal experience. I purchased Aenima on vinyl on Spetember 17th, 1996 because it let me get my hands on the album 2 weeks before everyone would buy the CD. I purchased this from Joe Nardone's Gallery of Sound in Mt. Pocono, PA. The manager had 3 copies: one for himself, one for Joe Nardone, and 1 extra. I paid him $20 dollars to hold it for me, and he did :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conorlogan (talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal experience is not a source Wikipedia can use. Rehevkor ✉ 18:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Tool/Nu-metal

Danteferno added this to my talk page but I believe it is more appropriate to discuss it here:

"Undue weight"? "Vague"? I see nothing "vague" about what was added: a reputable/published author mentioned Tool as being a nu-metal band. There are sections on both the nu-metal page and the Tool page that state Tool being an influence on prominent nu-metal bands. Hence, your revert of the citation sounds like a little WP:POV - nothing questionable about the source, so...? --Danteferno (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Only a single author claims Tool to be nu-metal. One source to support the claim. Undue weight. Compared to the many reliable sources that could be provided that contradict it, why does his opinion deserve so much more weight than theirs? Reliability has nothing to do with it. Rehevkor ✉ 01:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please link the "section" on Wikipedia where it states more than one source has to be available for a statement to be included in an article. The source in subject already falls under WP:RS; in addition, many claims in this article are attributed to only one source, so...?--Danteferno (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE: "generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." If more reliable sources call them nu-metal it should be worth a mention, but not the way it was "x says they are nu-metal", that has no context. Rehevkor ✉ 01:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Both the nu-metal and Tool article already explain (with sources) how the band has association with the nu-metal genre. Therefore, there's no contradictions or "minority viewpoint". --Danteferno (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

How is that relevant? Unless you're suggesting we use Wikipedia itself as a source. Either way hey both use this same single disputed source. One source. I have since removed them for the same reasons I have removed them from this article. Rehevkor ✉ 01:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You've completely evaded what I said: both articles already mention (with their own offline, WP:RS sources - not WP:OR) Tool's association with the nu-metal genre. I'm not talking about what I added, I'm talking about the information existing on both pages that point to the band's association with nu-metal. Therefore, this is not "WP:UNDUE weight", it's an editor who doesn't agree with a WP:RS source that easily corroborates with existing WP:RS sources. --Danteferno (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What connection? Their connection as an influence of nu-metal? No direct mention of nu metal in the Tool article. Only mention in the nu metal is as an influence. If you can provide these sources that specifically state Tool as a nu metal band we can move forward, but so far I feel I'll only just be repeating myself. Rehevkor ✉ 02:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would highly suggest that those who are discussing this topic here also add to the discussion over at Talk:List of nu metal bands, where the placement of bands based on only a few sources or a single source is being discussed. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC))

It would also be helpful if someone who is knowledgeable about nu metal expand its article and clean it up based on the sources and factual accuracy. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC))

Post Metal

[1] lists Tool as Post-metal. NoremacDaGangsta (talk)

Tool are cited as post-metal on that page, yes. The citations for "post-metal" could be included in the main text of the article (specifically the musical style section), but I think we should avoid putting "post-metal" in the infobox. --LordNecronus (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Tool are post metal it says so on the articles cited on the list of post-metal band pages. Listen to tracks like lipan conjuring, and Third Eye they exemplify many post-metal elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XKerNeLKLuTcHx (talk • contribs) 01:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

New Album

I heard a spot on the radio for a new Tool Album just the other day. It said "New Tool album, Fall 2010!" Can this be confirmed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismafuchris (talk • contribs) 15:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've only heard that they've started very preliminary early work on the album, and they're touring a bunch this summer, so that doesn't strike me as likely...Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

opiate

why is the Opiate album not disclosed? this was one of their best works! was Opiate not considered a "studio" album? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.86.20 (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Because it's an EP. It's listed in Tool_discography. Rehevkor ✉ 20:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"Towering Influence" on Nu-Metal

I believe that the second paragraph under the influnces section should be altered or removed. The mention of Tool as a "influence on modern metal" is an opinion that most people knowledged on the topic would not agree with. Also the book in which this source came from should almost immediately be disregarded based on the title The New Metal Masters, since new metal is nu-metal and this article (I'm sure for credible reasons) does not aknowledge Tool as a nu-metal band. Also in the next sentance it states Tool has a "towering influence" on System of a Down, Deftones, and Korn. Neither Korn nor System of a Down (not sure on Deftones) have ever stated as having been influenced by Tool. Also when the article it came from is read "the genre" it is refering to is nu-metal. Both articles on System of a Down and Tool DO NOT LIST NU-METAL AS A GENRE BECAUSE NEITHER BAND IS NU-METAL. How credible are sources that mistake the band's genre? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.35.253 (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Quoting someone who out of the blue attributes Tool as a "towering" influence on these bands is very foggy. I vote for deletion as well. Revan (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problem here. The article doesn't say that they were necessarily influenced by them, just that that particular writer thought that he saw a connection. Secondly, anything having to do with nu-metal are your own assumptions and conclusions. All it says is that they are an influence on "modern metal". There is little dispute on that; all the bands mentioned are generally seen as both metal and modern in their sound. Sergecross73 msg me 19:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Sergecross73 really. However, as the source was it appeared to be a copyright violation, the attributed The Boston Phoenix must be presumed to be the copyright holders of the text and there is no evidence they have given toolshed the rights to re-publish the article online. It need to be correctly attributed to The Boston Phoenix article. Rehevkor ✉ 19:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Then, I presume, it would be just as accurate to do the reversed: citing the same source in System of a Down's, Deftone's, and Korn's articles as well, attributing them Tool as an influence because a reporter wrote it without having any of the bands ever mentioning Tool? Revan (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Influences Section

Maynard James Keenan expresses appreciation for Pink Floyd in these two interviews:

http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/news/article/0,,7636462,00.html

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/1040862

And Adam Jones in this quote:

http://www.icelebz.com/quotes/adam_jones/

Something to include in the influences section? Revan (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the first one, but the 2nd and 3rd sources, I highly doubt they are reliable sources... Sergecross73 msg me 19:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Artist Direct seems okay. The second attributes "Aquarian", which seems to be The Aquarian Weekly, which can be used as a source if the article\issue etc can be found, that link cannot, as the user wouldn't have the rights to publish the text so it's a copyright violation, see WP:ELNEVER. Icelebz is way out, as none of the sources/quotes are attributed - quotes could have come from anywhere or anyone. Rehevkor ✉ 19:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I found the interview from a 1996 issue of the Aquarian on toolshed.down.net: http://toolshed.down.net/articles/text/aquarian.xxx.96.html

I don't suppose that works any better? Revan (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Same issue as before, it's a copyright violation. Toolshed don't have the rights to publish the article. Rehevkor ✉ 16:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Tool is a rock band (not a progressive metal band)

This is the version of the article that was granted FA status on 7 december 2007. I rest my case. 81.83.134.241 (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not much of a case. Articles change. Tool is most definitely the definition of progressive metal. The metre changes in Schism and 46 and 2 are proof enough. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• If using metre changes is proof enough to be called progressive metal, then just about two thirds of all classical music can be tagged progressive metal.
• Articles change, but the music this band recorded up till 2007 has not changed since, has it, or should I now rush to the nearest record store and replace all my Tool albums with new copies? 81.83.134.241 (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The ecclectic vocals with hidden meanings, odd instrumentation (including tracks that are just noise), seguing of songs between one another and conceptualized albums provide more evidence; these are all facets of progressive music. Articles change, nothing says the 2007 version was correct nor that the current version is correct. Often bands are generalized to avoid petty squabbles over the genre, even when it is obvious and indicated on many critical reviews of the band - And this is what matters; what notable critics deem the band. Not how you and I interpret it. You have yet to provide any proof to the contrary except an old diff of this article. Also, there is no need for the condescending comments, they won't get you anywhere except ignored. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You wrote pretty much what I was about to say. They are definitely labeled as progressive metal, but it leads to so many arguments, edit wars, etc because everyone's opinion of "progressive" and "rock/metal" is different. I think just putting "rock" in there was meant to lessen the edit wars and arguing. However, while I'm not sure it's worked, "rock" certainly isn't wrong either. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if my comments sounded condescending, I just have a rather cynical sense of humour (or so I have been told).81.83.134.241 (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Even when articles are featured and exemplary, they always have room to change or even improve in certain areas (but yes, I understand the reason why they are featured is because they are top-tier, high-quality, first rate articles). I personally disagree with going around and changing their genre in the introductory passage from progressive metal to rock. Rock is a much more vague term than progressive metal, and unless their status as a progressive metal band is debatable or based on questionable proof or stances, it should not be changed to "rock". The only time I would promote such changing is if there is so much feuding about the band being x genre(s), and that feuding regularly involves genres that are outside of metal music. If non-metal genres are rarely involved, then it would be more aptly changed to "Tool is a metal band..." I don't keep track of this page continuously, so I do not know how much genre feuding there is on this and relevant pages; therefore, I may be missing a few things on this page. I could understand why you'd want to call them a rock band if you wanted to cut down on the genre feuding, but to cite that it was in a featured article version of the page is a weak stance. The genre of a band has nothing to do with an article's [featured] status. Even if there is a lot of feuding, I would probably prefer taking the band's genre out of the sentence entirely instead of generalizing it, although I guess I don't have a shut mind to the "rock" tag, despite my list of reservations. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 19:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Well, someone I know had his ass kicked big time by a major contributor to this article for changing the genre from rock to progressive metal in one of the Tool album articles (misled by the fact that that was what Tool were called in almost all of the articles dedicated to their albums and singles). Whether you call them a metal or a rock band, there should at least be consistency across all the Tool-related articles in Wikipedia. 81.83.134.241 (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, consistency. That's not a bad argument. I can understand where you're coming from with your plea for consistency. I do like consistency in circumstances like these. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 01:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

True, and consistency is good... but the style of albums can vary over time from a band, while critics place them under a specific label. I'd advocate rock if there were plenty of conflicting styles that the band was labelled under. The sources should be analyzed and styles counted. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Toolband announcement to be taken seriously?

As per the website, which is being used as a source in the article:

All right, moving forward. No matter how many new TOOL tunes are currently complete, I will personally guarantee that the new CD will be released on MAY 22, 2012 (or MAY 15, 2012). And unlike that old f**k rattling the shingles with his cauliflower and mini-Cheddars flatulence, my calculation is not based on some preposterous coded Biblical numerology. Instead, it comes from a credible source who, himself, obtained the information via trance-contact (which was written down on a scratch pad) from an interplanetary avatar (and sector commander) named ZEMKLA JR. from the city of Farlon on the planet Selo (in the Bernard's Star System). Source

Now, while I believe this is the band's official site...is this to be taken seriously? Reading it, along with the paragraphs before and after it, makes me think they're just satirizing all the "Rapture" stuff in the news. I don't think it's to be taken seriously. (Not to mention, it's not very often album dates are laid out a year in advance. It's hard to measure out that process so far in advance; a lot could happen in a year.) Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Tool is the kind of band that likes to mess with their fans. If they are indeed being serious we will know soon enough. --Pritoolmachine2806 (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree. I put that on here because that is exactly how their webmaster (same guy) announced Lateralus. They do tend to mess with their fans, but given the lack of sarcasm in the comment (and not to mention the questioning of which week of May they are supposedly going to release the album.) I suppose we can keep that for future reference, but I am almost positive that that is a legitimate announcement. I expect an official announcement coming in the coming weeks/months from either the band or Jive/Volcano. --Chaseeversole (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2011 (EST)

How could you not sense sarcasm? So you thought "ZEMKLA JR. from the city of Farlon on the planet Selo (in the Bernard's Star System)." was a literal source? O_o Sergecross73 msg me 04:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source with information straight from Keenan himself. While it doesn't directly address this, it does show that this must have been a hoax. Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Why no led zepplin in influences? They have done at least two covers...

When the levee breaks is perfect circle I think but No Quarter is tool. Also diary of madman is ozzie song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.157.22 (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Because no one's bothered to do it? Feel free to find a reliable source and add it yourself if you deem it necessary... Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Toolshed

Fansites, are usually inherently unreliable, the main reason is that they are self published sources, using them is against Wikipedia policy, WP:SPS in particular. By extension, any polls or "awards" they might have or give are not notable. Unless of course they receive coverage from independent reliable sources, but that's another matter. Яehevkor ✉ 20:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not an award. I fail to understand what is it that you are objecting. This fansite is not claiming a fact, so WP:RS does not apply here , it is just stating that the poll was won by lateralus. I personally like eulogy and third eye. but i feel that this deserves a mention in the article.Foodie 377 (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay. It's not an award. It's still not a reliable source, a self published site and a fan site. It simply cannot be used. All sources must be reliable, since when has it been otherwise? The results of this poll, or the poll on any other fansite, is simply not notable. Anyone can start a poll about anything they like, anywhere. These should not taken into consideration when building an encyclopaedia article. This is a featured article, and any information on it should be kept to a high standard, and by virtue a high standard of sources. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the results of a poll have no absolutely significance on the history of the band. What I or you think is the best song is not relevant either, I only mentioned Stinkfist in a jovial comment. Яehevkor ✉ 20:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Point taken BUT the "fansite" is already being used as a source in this article. Source 35.^ a b Akhtar, Kabir. "Tool News: April Fools 1997". toolshed.down.net. Retrieved March 29, 2007. Before Tool had their own website, Toolshd.down.net was a semi official Tool page.Foodie 377 (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the featured article discussion, it was accepted is that instance because it is fact checked by a band member. I may not agree with that, but that's not relevant. Regardless, the "facts" in that case were apparently acceptable, but a poll conducted by that site is a another matter entirely. Яehevkor ✉ 20:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Rehevkor here. Unless this poll or whatever is covered by another reliable source (ie Rolling Stone magazine mentions it or something), it doesn't belong here. Sergecross73 msg me 22:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Math rock?

The whole album Lateralus is probably the ideal definition of the genre, itself. The total time-signature changes in the song: "Schism" were 47 times. The first one was 5/4, one bar of 4/4, then following bars of 5/8 and 7/8, the interlude is consisting of bars of 6/8 and 7/8. I think the weirdest one was the time-signature of 6.5/8; which would be 13/16, but even though it is a legal and a logical time-signature. Alternating bars of 5/8 and 7/8. The next bar was 6/4, then one bar of 11/8. I am not going to say everyone of the time-signatures that had changed, because you get it already.

Math rock definition: - Usually complex, obscure/atypical time-signatures, such as: 7/8, 11/8, 13/8, or any other wacked out ones. - Most of the bands seem to be generalize their sound with experimental rock, progressive rock/metal, jazz fusion, avant-garde jazz, minimalism, noise rock, and post-hardcore. - Instruments are used for textures rather than the sound of melodies in the music.

Tool songs that show math rock: "Lateralus", "Die Eire von Satan", "Cesaro Summability", "Forthy Six & 2," Jambi," "Parabola," and etc. A lot of their songs in their discography show these examples of what math rock is what, and what the foundations of are. panicpack121 11:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with such a genre, but that doesn't really matter, the same question needs to be posed regardless: Are there any reliable sources that call it such a thing? Sergecross73 msg me 18:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

10,000 Days cover art

I would like to summon anyone coming across this thread to take a look at this since I'm seeking help for a consensus here. • GunMetal Angel 07:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)