Talk:Schism (song)

Song Information

Does someone know what the song lyrics are about? Other Tool (band) track entries in Wikipedia have some sort of song description attached.202.78.157.157 10:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess this should be one of the easiest Tool songs to figure out. Read this part again:

[...] Pure intention juxtaposed will set two lovers' souls in motion 
Disintegrating as it goes, testing our communication
The light that fueled our fire then has burned a hole between us so
We cannot see to reach an end, crippling our communication 
[...]
(We're) doomed to crumble unless we grow and strengthen our communication. 

Hope that helps.. These interpretations can normally not be included in song articles, unless they have been reported elsewhere. --Johnnyw talk 11:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

Should this article be merged with Schism (DVD)?Irn 00:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. —Keenan Pepper 01:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah.--Johnnyw 20:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. -- Rynne 17:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why or why not. If so, just make sure to edit the Parabola (DVD) page accordingly, as it has a link to the Schism (DVD) article.SeanQuixote | talk | my contribs 23:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Too much infomation.

Do we really need so much information on how the song is played? Its too confusing & overwhelming for the reader.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Thief (talk • contribs) .

I shortened it down to the one analysis that was done by Guitar One and moved it into its own section.--Johnnyw 12:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention wrong. Schism is mostly alternating between 5/8, and 7/8. |XxXxx|XxXxXxx|

I agree. to count this song as 6/8 is just plain awkward. The alternating time signatures give the song that unique push pull feel.206.180.109.86 (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

209.106.203.253 (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank You. --The Thief 23:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The song analysis is over the top. What proportion of readers are going to really read that in depth and get something out of it? A link should be put to a page that has the analysis of the song . M0rt 11:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That isn't a valid statement. However, since no one can agree on an interpretation, i will agree with your conclusion. It should be nixed. Since Tool straightforwardly refuses to discuss what their newer songs mean, having a place where wiki members can post about it make no sense. Tool does have message boards for that kind of thing, it is better suited for places like that. Links to Toolband.com, toolarmy.com and toolnavy.com would be much better suited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.215.95 (talk • contribs)

The last statement about the band saying, "comically," that the song is in 13/8 needs a citation at least. Also, if the song does in fact alternate between 5/8 and 7/8 (i.e. it is in 13/8), then this would be equivalent to 6.5/8.Rampantidiocy (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The 5/8 and 7/8 assessment is wrong because these two alternating measures would add up to 12/8, not 13/8 or 6.5/8 as the band has said. Either way, time signatures in such a complex song are very largely up to interpretation, and not factual, so my opinion (for what it's worth as a music minor) is that analysis that isn't cited to a music theory expert of some kind or the band itself wouldn't be appropriate to be presented as fact in an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.41.141 (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Promo schism.jpg

Image:Promo schism.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SCHISMBIG.jpg

Image:SCHISMBIG.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tool schism.jpg

Image:Tool schism.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Silent Hill: Homecoming reference

It seems unlikely that the Silent Hill monster Schism is a reference to this song; it seems much more likely that the monster's name refers to the religious concepts of division. Since no source was listed for the reference, I've gone ahead and removed it. 4.238.180.207 (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Timing

That entire section about the time signature is just speculation. It is also very uninteresting and possibly confusing to those who do not read music. We surely do not need time signatures for every song article on Wikipedia. The section is entirely 'in universe,' unsourced, awkward and not relevant to 99% of people who are visiting the song article to learn about the song - not the timing. I'd like to hear opinions from others, possibly from the Projects that are affiliated with this article. Aloysius? How Delicious! (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is relevant because it is such an odd time-signature, whereas it is trivial for songs in standard duple or triple.Rampantidiocy (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It may be relevant to mention is HAS odd time signatures, but this elaborate explanation of them (unsourced no less) is over 50% of the article. Surely that's too much "information." Source it, explain why it needs to take up so much of the article, or get rid of it. Wikis are meant to be accessible (read: understandable) by a significant portion of readers. While perhaps 1 in a thousand will actually understand this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.42.137 (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The section on timing is important because this song's innovative and complex meter is emblematic of the kinds of songs Tool writes and the prominent position that meter plays in most of their music. I meticulously counted out the 8th notes and put in where emphasizing down beats came. This caused for a couple of adjustments in sections formerly stating a single bar of 5/8 and another section that stated alternating 6/8 and 7/8--these bars weren't counting out right. Now it counts out perfectly and people can follow the creative minds of this rhythmically sophisticated band's most rhythmically sophisticated song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.210.104 (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A reference idea

This one: McIver, Joel (2012). Unleashed: The Story of TOOL (electronic book). Omnibus Press. ISBN 978-0-85712-770-9 – via Google Books. I think it will be good source on the song’s both music/lyrics and video. From Russia with love, Gleb95 (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC).