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)

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)

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?