Jump to content

Talk:Tool (band)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Realpunkmusic (talk | contribs) at 17:10, 7 August 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleTool (band) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 9, 2012.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 28, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
June 12, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 19, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
July 30, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 7, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Live Show

In the last paragraph of the section title "Live Show" it has, "Breckinridge Haggerty, the band's live video director, ..." and then later it has, "Andres Abrego is the live video director." Is this correct or were these guys the directors for different tours ? It seems unlikely that they would have two guys do the job.

Vince Klortho (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source says Haggerty is the video designer, and Abrego is not mentioned at all. I have amended the article. Good catch; thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember right, there was a user a ways back that was causing trouble regarding this, wrongfully switching the names around. I'm not sure though, I looked through a page or two of the archives and didn't see anything, and it would have been buried too far back in the page's history to be worth searching for... Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick google on "Andres Abrego" yesterday and turned up nobody notable, so I wonder if it was kids fooling around. Regardless, Abrego is not mentioned in the quoted source, so it seemed simplest to just remove it. Best, -- Dianna (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote that paragraph way back, it was Haggerty. I have not read the name Abrego anywhere.. Thanks for the catch! Johnnyw talk 12:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

genre

I generally consider Tool as an experimental rock band. While that's just me, the characteristics seem to fit them pretty well. For example, unconventional time signatures, singing styles, lyrical techniques, etc. Are people okay with adding experimental rock to the genres? --24.107.207.98 (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Featured Article, so any and all content has to have sources; if the genre of experimental rock band is assigned to the band by reliable sources, then we can include it. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable then. 24.107.207.98 (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why is this band classified as a Rock band? this band is definatly alot more metal than rock, the band is known to the defining Alternative metal band, why are we calling them rock? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zappyo29 (talkcontribs) 03:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure because there's historically been endless arguing and bickering over their genre (rock, alt rock, alt metal, heavy metal, prog, prog metal, post metal etc etc etc) Just about any of those genre all under the general umbrella of "Rock", and not much else can be agreed on, so just "rock" tends to be used. Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sergecross73 is right. Don't take this as a definitive judgement on this question. Wikipedia is all about sources, so this is the result of journalism and media labelling Tool according to the times the articles were written. If you read the biography, you will find that the band has been labelled with many different genres, from alternative rock, then alternative metal, but also progressive and art rock and later post metal. By incorporating this information into the biography, we try to give these opinions about labels and genres the context they deserve. Johnnyw talk 08:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

correction

the article seems to say that Justin Chancellor said that "Schism" is in "13/16" time, but it's not. it's in 12/8 (or 7/8+5/8). My reference is math. How would I cite that? lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manosdefierro (talkcontribs) 04:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... this is talking about things I don't understand. Citing your own math doesn't work. You need to find a reliable source for it. The current reference (CTRL-F "schism" > 2nd result) says it starts in six, then goes into six and a half. I don't know what that means. >_> Anyone else able to weigh in on this? Lara 06:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Six" means 6/4 which is equivalent to 12/8, so Manosdefierro and the source are right and the information in the article seems to be wrong or maybe changed at a later point.. I will fix the article in accordance with the source. Thanks for the pointer. Johnnyw talk 15:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed fifth album

I entered greater detail about the delay of the fifth album, as it appears to be a significant occurrence in the band's history that requires elaboration. The delay, and its underlying causes, have been considerable enough for the band to specifically speak to Rolling Stone about it, so I thought the information is worth including in greater detail. I have shared this on the Talk page, in the even that people who have a greater history with this page believe that the additional detail is not necessary.--Soulparadox (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is merely one of a series of announcements dating back to 2009. If we cover every such announcement in detail, soon the section starts to overwhelm the article, making it worse, not better. Extensive quotations from sources do not make for good writing. It's better to put things in our own words. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This seems reasonable, so I have removed the second quote. I have left the first quote, as I included it in the first instance to describe a particular situation that has seemingly been the cause of lengthy discussion. It seems like the words of the actually people involved is the best way to convey what is actually happening, as opposed to hearsay or misinterpretation.--Soulparadox (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not alternative metal

Tool are hardly metal, the only metal sub genre they fall under is progressive metal. Change their alternative metal to alternative rock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realpunkmusic (talkcontribs) 11:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia relies on published reviews for genre, not personal opinions. Find some reliable sources or your viewpoint has no leverage. Binksternet (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://m.axs.com/rock-band-tool-blends-progressive-and-alternative-rock-to-formulate-th-11294 Tool is not metal, metal has a more masculine and heavier sound Realpunkmusic (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you were told elsewhere, we go by what reliable sources say, and there are many reliable sources out there that refer to them as different variants of metal. Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://archive.rgj.com/article/20140309/LIV/303090026/Alternative-rock-band-Tool-perform-tonight-Reno-Events-Center lists them again as alternative rock instead of metal and finally, the final source to end all disputes has the 3 genres they should be labeled as http://www.sputnikmusic.com/bands/Tool/83/ please change it, leaving art rock on top of those 3 is fine Realpunkmusic (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that first source does call them alternative rock. That's a reason to add that genre, should others not object (I'm not familiar with this source in particular.) It's not a valid reason to remove alternative metal though, if there are sources supporting that as well. I'm puzzled by your second source, as it lists them as both "metal" and "progressive metal" - so, I'm not sure how that helps your "they're not metal" argument exactly. Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no no, the second source only lists them as progressive metal which I said is fine anyway, not alternative metal. they are 2 different sounds. if at all possible, it would be great if you could have their genres listed in this order: progressive rock, progressive metal, art rock, alternative rock. thanks Realpunkmusic (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time agreeing when I see music critics write things like " If alternative metal has a defining band, it’s Tool". The article's history section discusses this as well. Sergecross73 msg me 16:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that source is confusing alternative metal with progressive metal which is why there is absolutely no mention of progressive metal in that article. http://www.vh1.com/music/tuner/2014-05-25/12-greatest-prog-rock-bands/ this is tool's primary genre Realpunkmusic (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]