Talk:Tool (band)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Rock of metal?

The intro states that Tool is a rock band, however the genres assigned are Progressive metal and Alternative metal. It´s really confusing. I think that Progressive rock and rock should also appear in the genres list on the box. Since I´m only an occasional Tool listener I will not be bold and edit it myself, but the article seems to contradict itself if the genres remains as it is now. Regards. Loudenvier 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing it out. You are right, there seems to be a lot of removing and reversing going on regarding the infobox genre. I will go and make it consistent with the article. --Johnnyw talk 08:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the quadruple listing "Rock, Heavy Metal, Alternative Metal, Progressive Metal" in the infobox is a bit overkill. Besides, Progressive Metal essentially originated from within Heavy Metal (as did Alt I suppose, but with a bit more genre convergence than the ideas of early Prog Metal), and it is the Prog end from which Tool draws influence. So I propose that we don't list Heavy Metal as an influence, unless we have a good reason to that I have neglected to realize.--Cassius987 20:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I originally wanted it to go along with the article (prog rock instead of prog metal): rock is obvious, prog rock because of the quote we got about 'lateralus' and their obvious influences, heavy metal due to jones' description about opiate and alt metal due to our own section "Arguments about genre and categorization". d'you think we should just drop heavy metal? what about alternative metal? what's alternative metal anyway? i gonna have to look that one up... --Johnnyw talk 23:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

My two cents on an article from a band I (still) did not listen to (too) much: Drop Heavy Metal, it normally refers to 70´s metal or to the metal genre in general (an all encompassing term). If Tool was influenced by early Heavy Metal or not do not make their style Heavy Metal. I would drop Heavy Metal and include Prog Rock (which I think is one of the most important style trademarks from Tool (again according to my litle understanding of this band)). I would list: Rock, Prog Rock, Alternative Metal, Prog Metal. I think Tool presents aspects from all this styles, but they´re definetily more Rock, Prog Rock. For example, Tool has just been excluded from the list of Progressive Metal bands (many metal fans do not categorize Tool as metal, which is oversimplification and POV on their parts). See Symphony X a band that is clearly Prog Metal but which includes many aspects of other styles, the genre list is 4 styles (although I could argue that Symphonic Metal is a litle "forced in"). Iron Maiden have three styles (although Heavy Metal and Classic Metal are the same thing.. :-) What I´m trying to say is that some bands that are clearly categorized in one style are being classified with more than one on wikipedia (which is good for the sake of completeness). Tool which is so varied and eclectic is certainly a subject of more than a few genre classifcations. (PS.: Sorry for the poor english!) Loudenvier 01:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the right denomination would be more prog metal and not prog rock since Tool is definetly has a heavier sound than most prog rock bands (such as, say, Pink Floyd, King Crimson or Rush) and indeed even more than some prog metal bands. Obviously however, it's quite hard to fit it into one or the other (or any definite genre), but I do think we should keep metal. Holomorph 01:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Simply being heavy is not enough to make them metal; take that and distorted guitars out of the mix, and they almost nothing in common. Besides, a clear musical lineage with metal must be obvious in order for a band to be metal, and Tool fails that test as well. No trad metalisms, no power metalisms, no black metalisms, no thrash metalisms, no NWOBHM-isms...etc. And this has already been decided anyway, see below. Ours18 06:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Questionable statement

"Their music has been influenced by King Crimson[8], Led Zeppelin[9], Pink Floyd[10], Rush, Meshuggah, Dream Theater, and early Yes, among several others. In turn, the list of bands that have been inspired by Tool is long and prestigious.[11]"

The reference used does not list these supposed bands, and I don't believe this statement is NPOV without this list. 68.12.69.141 03:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, not NPOV would mean we would exclude any differing statements from this summarizing statement or overtly exaggerating a POV. This is not the case. There are some articles talking about Tool influencing many - some very succesful - bands, as e.g. [1] which are very unprecise, others, like the Fred Durst bio who quotes saying that Tool's Undertow influenced him deeply, etc. etc. Tell me please if you find such a list of who-extacly-claimed-to-be-influenced by ANY band. --Johnnyw talk 13:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

After going over the material we got about Tool's influence, how about this alternative version?

Proposal: In turn, Tool's records have been deemed influential by the press and fellow artists alike.

This would account for the Drum Media article linked above, this Spin article I know of and the fact that several artists have been quoted saying that the band has (had) a big influence on them. If there are any more sources regarding this, I'd appreciate the input.. =) --Johnnyw talk 14:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Due to the overwhelming response, I changed it to "In turn, Tool's music has been deemed influential by critics and fellow artists alike." --Johnnyw talk 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Influences

Can anyone provide a source citing Dream Theater as one of Tool's influences? I've read hundreds of Tool interviews and I've never once seen them mention Dream Theater. However, I have read interviews where Tool mentions the other non-cited influences. If I find them, I'll add them as citations. I've also seen Dream Theater express their appreciation for Tool, but not vice versa. Saying the bands sound similar is not adequate and is purely subjective. We need to either add a citation or remove the reference to Dream Theater. Ignitus 07:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That was just recently added and I seemed to have missed it, otherwise I would have reverted. It is completely justified to remove, I have never read a single word about DT in connection with influencing Tool. Thx for pointing it out. --Johnnyw talk 08:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I remember reading somewhere that Justin is a big Dream Theater fan. Couldn't even begin to think of where I saw that though. Could have dreamt it as well - who knows! hellboy 11:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know for sure but I don't think so. As far as the band as a whole, I've never read something of the sort (and I've read a lot of interviews), so I'm removing it since it still has no citation. Holomorph 00:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Australian tour dates

As far as I can tell Australian tour dates were announced today on Triple J. This however is the only mention of an expected tour I can find. The main page provides a link to Tools tour page (which also does not mention the dates) as the reference for all tour dates. I am assuming this is just a minor oversight, and as I can't find a reference other than what i heard mentioned on triple J i'll leave it to somone else to change as they see fit. bladeScythe 10:05, 16 August 2006

Progressive Rock, Rock v. Progressive Metal

It seems to me that almost daily, someone changes the genre that appears in Tool's infobox. Later that day, someone will change it back. Can we come to some sort of consensus here? This is starting to get annoying. --King Bee 15:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we should do what Wikipedians always do, look for sources to clarify this issue... How about we create a little table to see, what sources uses which terms? I'll start below and exclude the terms "art-rock", "heavy metal", etc. that some articles use since they seem underrepresented.. The list is of course incomplete, so pls feel free to add more sources to complete the picture... --Johnnyw talk 11:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Source	Rock	Prog. Rock	Prog. Metal	Alt. Metal
AllMusic artist page	X	X	X	X
Rolling Stone Lateralus review		X
E! Online 10k days review	X	X
Pitchfork 10k days review		X	X
PR-Biography (SonyBMG Germany)		X

This is a great idea. I'll look for some stuff myself. --King Bee 12:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that the Encyclopaedia Metallum, the foremost online metal resource on the planet, does not have a page for them on the grounds that they are not metal. To quote one of the mods:

There is no genealogical link between Tool and any type of metal at any point in development of said types, meaning that Tool bears no "familial" relation to any of the staves of metal. No Sabbathisms, or any of the "isms" derived thereof. No Maidenisms/Priestisms, or any of the "isms" derived thereof. Not even any Motörheadisms (or any of..." "). Obviously no relation whatsoever to any sort of power, death, or black metal, and subsequently to progressive metal, which is itself symbiotic with some other basic type of metal--usually power, speed, or traditional. The typical 'counter' here is "But....but that is because Tool is so original and creative!!" To this I say, even those rare metal bands that from time to time issue forth from the void bearing no immediately cogent signs of influence still tend to display some kind of basic aesthetic phenotype of whatever style it is that they play--blastbeats, "galloping" riff styles, or whathaveyou. Tool does't even possess any real similarity to any of those styles of "heavy" punk music often confused with metal--hardcore, metalcore, and/or grindcore.

What are we left with that might feasibly lead us to assign Tool metal status? Long songs and basic guitar distortion. Both of which are hardly the sole domain of metal.''

Obviously, the Metal Archives isn't always the end-all-be-all, but it usually is. Tool is not metal, regardless of what their fanbase might claim, and a few metal influences does not qualify a band as being metal anymore than having jazz-styled guitar solos makes Meshuggah a free-form jazz band. They are a very original prog rock band with hints of metal; nothing more. ---Ours18

Great find! King Bee 00:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully it can save this page from being immortalised in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars :) Psychobabble

The unfortunate thing is that it probably already belongs there. =) --King Bee 03:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, oh, prog metal is back. Was the consensus that the band is not in this genre?

No.....the band definitely isn't metal, and even if you disagree that nice'n'handy chart a few spaces above me shows quite clearly that the consensus is "not prog metal." Ours18 01:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was saying... "was the consensus that the band is not in this genre. I'll re-edit prog metal out.Psychobabble

Tool, a Metal band

Tool is both listed as a progressive metal band and alternative metal band in Wikipedia, those facts you people mentioned prove nothing, if you resource most metal sites (like metalreviews.com, metalstorm.ee, metal-observer.com, etc...) , they consider Tool a metal band, as you know Metal-Archives is an ultra elitist site, and even denies bands like Mnemic and Soulfly when they are also considered metal here in wekipedia, and then they consider Alice in Chains a metal band, when they clearly are a grunge band. In my final word Tool is a combination of metal (the base of the music) [heavy guitar riffing, blast-beats, complex bass work] mixed with 70's prog-rock (mainly King Crimson) and early 90's alternative music (like grunge). Thanks and please accept Tool as a metal band, ending this discussion. signed: The guy that changes the damn thing every day, and will continue to do so, as I believe I'm correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.72.121 (talk • contribs)

Keep changing it, and you'll be blocked in violation of WP:3RR. This is the stupidest edit war in the history of my time on wikipedia. We grabbed 5 random media outlets in the topic above, and they all say progressive rock. I don't care which one we choose, so long as it stays as one. This can't keep happening. --King Bee 14:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

So block me, but this page will have false content, the heavy metal community is not happy with this, many say that Wekipedia has become not even 10% accurate, I had faith in this site, but the musical area is all twsited up, you didn't even care with my arguments, you probably didn't even resource the sites I mentioned, that are especialized metal sites, and not 5 random (and yet popular) media ones, that know nothing about the subject. I'll not waste my time changing it no more, since this dicussiom page is useless, I'm unable to discuss anything here, I have better things to do. Wekipedia as now another inaccurate page, due to the fact that no democracy rules here, only your dictatorship. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.72.121 (talk • contribs)

You're wrong---that's all I have to say on the subject. Dead wrong. As for MA's inconsitency, that's because if they remove AiC after having been on there so long a ton of people will send them hate mail and bitch about it on the forum, without actually bringing up anything of substance. Hmm, what does this sound like? Oh that's right, the Tool issue. Every week, someone complains about Tool not being included. Their basis for Tool's alleged metalness? Nothing---as has been showed earlier, there's a much stronger case for them not being metal than for being metal (blast beats? What?), so they are left with nothing but to complain that the only reason the band isn't accepted on the site is because they're "popular™" and because MA is "elitist™." This isn't an argument, it's not even close to one. The closest you can get to arguing for Tool's categorization as a metal band is that they are loud and angry---that's it. Ours18 08:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing: the primary reason the metal community considers this site inaccurate is because of revisionist music fans who think Tool is metal and Korn is metal and everything of this sort; you are not doing the rest of us any favors by insisting Tool is a metal band (nor are you helping the band at all, either). So if you're editing it from either of those two standpoints, just stop, it's counterproductive. Ours18 08:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey anon - I just checked out metalstorm.ee, one of the sites you listed, and Tool is NOT listed as "progressive metal" there. They are listed as Alternative and Avant Garde. I don't know what you're gunning for. --King Bee 10:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

To add to that, metalreviews.com has reviews for Korn, Slipknot and Limp Bizkit, so that pretty much ruins their credibility for metal genre categorization. Ours18 11:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not stating they are a prog-metal band, I'm stating that they are atlist a metal band, you can also check last.fm and see for yourself that most tags point Tool as a metal band. This debate is pointless, I can't fight your dictatorship, you are the God of Reason, and I can only make a bow. And doesn't Wekipedia list Tool as progressive metal? and as alternative metal? Why the hell the Tool page as them classified as prog-rock? When they are listed otherwise. I can't understand. As I said most music pages are completly twisted. I tried to help, but as I see from your arguments, this is a hopeless fight. End of debate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.72.121 (talk • contribs)

If you're not saying that they are prog-metal, why did you keep changing it to prog metal? It says Alt-metal and Prog-rock right now, I don't know why you're so upset. Lastly, look at WP:NOT. This place isn't a democracy, and this article is not mine. This is why we addressed the genre issue on the talk page and got a discussion going. We collected evidence, and drew conclusions. Again, I can't tell why you're so angry. --King Bee 15:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why no one can explain me why they are listed as alt-metal, and prog-metal, and in their page they are a prog-rock band (this is the 3rd time I adress this subject). Second point, I'm not angry, I just tried to help, and I was ignored, so it's pointless to go on debating, but as you insist, fine with me. All the evidence you collected comes from mainstream garbage. If you people really believe that Tool is not a metal band, fine, I can also believe pigs can fly, or maybe Tool is perhaps a reggae band, why not? Lumping Tool with Rush and Pink Floyd is really wise, and I see you people must know a lot about music. I'm not a particular expert, but Tool sounds more like Black Sabbath than Pink Floyd, you don't have to be an expert to know that, just listen to the music. And why discussion pages exist anyway? I have written too much, maybe someday things will change, the future tends to evolution, so I will keep my faith, that people will open their eyes some day. "For no assumption I will waste my reason". Peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.72.121 (talk • contribs)

If you tell me how to change what they are listed as, I'll do it, as they shouldn't be listed as metal period. It's the mainstream garbage that considers Tool a metal band; I thought Metal Archives was elitist? And Tool bear absolutely no similarity to Black Sabbath apart from the fact that they are loud, and as I already said, that is not good enough. Ours18 22:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes all mighty God of Reason, Tool is prog-rock, please forgive this ignorant inferior, I will now sacrifice a cow in your honor.

So you based your decison only on Metal-Archives? Let me recall you: rollingstone.com, www.eonline.com, pitchforkmedia.com, allmusic.com, and the amazing sonybmg.de

"For no assumption I will waste my reason". Peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.72.121 (talk • contribs)

"...only on Metal Archives?" No, the vast and overwhelming consensus of the metal community. Please note the metal community does not include Korn, Tool, Limp Bizkit, Slipknot, or Deftones fans, as these bands are not metal. You can't seriously tell me you consider Rolling Stone and E! to be informed on metal? Pitchfork considers Korn a metal band, ergo it's quite clear they don't know what they're talking about. Ditto on allmusic.com; "rap-metal" is not metal.

You cannot expect to get good information on a subject from sources that do not specialize in that subject; I would not expect a jazz website to know the difference between thrash metal and black metal, nor would I expect them to be able to accurately classify bands into either of those categories. Rolling Stone is a mainstream magazine specializing in mainstream pop and rock music; not metal. E! is only interested in popular culture, something which metal is no longer a part of. Neither of those two sources are reliable sources for metal, or ambient, or hell, even some forms of dance music.

I'd like to nominate the Tool page for some sort of genre-freeze, if that is possible. Tool fans like to tell everyone their favorite band is a metal for the tag, or because they are genuinely that delusional/uninformed; they've been doing this for years. The consensus in the metal community is that Tool is not a metal band, however, and that should be indicated in the article. Tool fans won't have it and are just going to keep changing it to better reflect their personal opinions rather than the truth. Ours18 20:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I would like to ask anyone reading this to tell me how to change Tool's listing from metal to something else. Ours18 20:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And you have the truth? How pretentious, a small consensus does not create the truth. I will help you, if Tool is prog-rock (they are that and much more), please check the progressive metal page since they are listed there as prog-metal, and you can change it.

Another thing about me, I'm not just an exclusive Tool fanboy, that thinks mallcore is metal, far from that, I'm a dedicated metalhead, that listens to all styles of the genre (so I know a little about the thing), beeing Tool one of my personal favourites, but not my fav. band (that is Blind Guardian by the way). You can check my last.fm page to confirm what music I listen to. www.last.fm/user/AlmaMater

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.72.121 (talk • contribs)

I believe that the opening sentence of this page should classify Tool as a progressive rock band, which it currently does. One of the first things most people do when they enter a page about a band is look over to the box to their right to see what genre the band are listed as. As long as one of the genre's listed there is alternative metal, the person visiting will have an adequate idea of what sort of band Tool is. Tool are a progressive rock band AND metal band. This makes them a PROGRESSIVE METAL band.Amazonis 08:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This debate is pointless. I am sorry to break the news on you, but Wikipedia is NOT about finding the truth. Wikipedia is about collecting common knowledge as reported by mainstream third parties. Welcome to the real world. I know this can be tough sometimes, as I myself have found out several times. Nevertheless, this is how things work: only 3rd party sources, only high profile sources, if available. If Allmusic, Rolling Stone, etc. pp. say theiy're prog rock, then we write that they say it's prog rock. If there is a debate among the "community" about the genre, we reflect this debate, but we won't include this debate in the intro paragraph of an article, because most people don't care. If someone is interested in this debate, he/she will read on and find out. --Johnnyw talk 10:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Tool is too heavy to be considered Progressive Rock. Whoever thinks Tool is more Progressive Rock than Metal should consider actually listening to them and maybe you will understand why Tool cannot be considered merely Progressive Rock. They are much more than that, and it is insulting to classify them that way.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.189.35.100 (talk • contribs) .

There is absolutely nothing even slightly derogatory about calling them progressive rock, and there are plenty of bands that are heavier than Tool which are still not metal. This has already been discussed here and on other sites, and besides, that chart up above shows that there's a consensus opinion on it.Ours18 05:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I can only recommend reading the article, dear anonymous user. In the article, specifically the section displaying the discussion about the genre, the band says: "As far as the prog references go, we embrace them." Not that we should really worry about the bandmember's feelings too much, but in this case it would obviously not even be justified to do so.. --Johnnyw talk 15:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Tool should be considered a prog rock band because of the length, complexity and failure(?) to conform to mainstream ideas of what constitutes a song ie; 3-4 minutes long, verse, chorus, verse etc. It has nothing to do with how heavy they may or may not be. I have listened to Tool but don't really like them (save for their singles) so maybe I can be a bit more objective about the issue than 68.189.35.100 who is obviously a diehard fan. Insulting to call them prog rock? Don't make me laugh!! Some of the best bands in the history of modern music were prog rock..

So Dream Theater, Opeth, Meshuggah, Pain Of Salvation, Unmoored, etc are progressive rock? Yeah, right... -- Dexter prog 15:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I aint never heard o none of those bands mister so pardon my philistinism but I can't really reply to your comment. What I will say though is that after discussing this issue with a friend who is an absolute Tool freak, he thought prog rock would be a wrongful classification. He preferred prog metal. I guess this is the inherent problem with classifying some bands. Nobody is ever going to totally agree with the classification of a band like Tool which I'm guessing would please these guys anyway.. it would me. So maybe it should be changed to something like progressively hard heavy metal rock thrash punk or no classification at all. When you think about it, its really of no consequence except in the context of an encyclopaedic entry or magazine article...

Article inaccuracy

The opening article states that Tool's second albumn was Ænima. This is wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.216.191.52 (talk • contribs) .

Discounting for Opiate being an EP, Ænima is well enough Tool's second album. But please let us not open up the discussion. It's more then futile to invest our time in this matter. --Johnnyw talk 08:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What about the elusiveness?

There is no mention at all in the original article about how elusive the band is. Save for one occasion that I can think of off hand in the music videos for prison sex, there is no video footage of the band. In fact, there aren't any dvd's released that feature the band performing live, very few interviews, and even fewer interactions with Maynard in most cases. In many pictures he won't even show his face. This adds to the idea that the band is not one of those emo bands that has a definitive "front man", and that each member is equally as important as the next, as demonstrated also on their live sets. Could someone please include some of this info?

ALSO no mention of performing live with the street drum corps in 2001? This article is really crappy compared to some of the other things on wikipedia.

shea cardinalli 2132 11.4.06

The statement made above about the lack of live DVDs is untrue, there are several live performances available on DVD, look in your local new and used music stores.

Tool has released live DVDs? That's news to me. Source?

"Schism" Time Signature: Inaccuracy in article

In the section with "arguments about music", it lists "6.5/8" as a time signature for Schism, as opposed to alternation between 5/8 and 7/8, but while a decade or two ago, that would've been an acceptable time signature, "13/16" is a real and rational time signature. Is there any reason to leave it as 6.5/8 or should it be changed to the modern time signature notation? Me as a Merry-go-round... 21:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Khavall 11/15/06

Justin Cancellor has stated that the time signature (in his opinion) is 5/8 and 7/8, or as he likes to call it "6.5/8" . Anyway, changing this changes nothing, because 5/8 & 7/8, 6.5/8 and 13/16 are the sime time signatures expressed in different way. You may also like to say it is 26/32 changing absolutely nothing. Dexter_prog 24 November 2006

I don't know much about music theory but I can tell you 5 + 7 = 12, not 13. I don't see how 5/8 + 7/8 is equivelent to 13/16. Ignitus 10:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The signature for the verses is 12/16; the signature for the chorus is 13/16. So, technically, it's both. = ∫ _t^c 5th Eye 17:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Coincidental?

I am quite new to Wikipedia so please excuse any inaccuracies in text boxes and such. I notice that in the first sentence of the section "The Early Days" the article mentions that they all "coincidentally" moved to Los Angeles. But this coincidence does not really exist, because if they had not all moved to Los Angeles then the band would not have formed and we would be none the wiser. If they had met, or had some relation before the move, the there would be a definite coincidence. May I suggest the word be changed to "luckily", or "thankfully"?

                                 Watto the jazzman 03:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The coincidence is that they all moved to the same place without knowing each other. If they met before they moved then it wouldn't be a coincidence. Having the word there expresses this, if it was not there then it would be misinterpreted as the band moving there together. 203.206.92.154 10:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

influences 2

Alice In Chains and Soundgarden should be listened with the other bands. Tool started with heavy grunge influences (Undertow), then that guys evolved their style, but Tool is a band influenced by grunge.Connacht

if you can find a citation, please add it. i would be skeptical, however, since those bands essentially co-existed with tool. Influences generally arise from prior artists.The undertow 17:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

02.08.2007/11:15pm PST - Ken Andrews did not direct Tool's music video for "Hush". He edited their video for "Prison Sex." Source: Ken Andrews Management

Vandalism

VANDALISM!

Someone has been coming to the article and changing the article and replacing it with "tool is the worst band ever, they suck and i hope they die"

How can we stop this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.69.91.239 (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

User 71.83.55.176 has been warned about this behaviour. Pomte 11:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

wonder if it's maynard or maybe a demon Danny Carey summoned Lenn0r 01:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a pretty well-referenced article, nearly GA

If a few improvements were made, I could see this being of the quality needed for good article status.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that is nice to hear, thank you... Do you have any specific suggestions? --Johnnyw talk 12:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

i agree it is a well done article, i check it out every so often. keep up the good work with it. like the Tool tours page as well. Lenn0r 01:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

quote

from article:

"In September of 2001, following the attacks on the World Trade Center, Tool decided to cancel its concerts for the first time in the band's history, on September 11 and 12. The first concert since 9/11 took place on September 14, in Columbus, Ohio at the Schottenstein Center. Maynard appeared on stage in army fatigues, and spoke to the crowd, asking them, prophetically, to "come together before we're torn apart."

i highly doubt the quote is factual though i wouldn't be surprised if they cancelled some concerts. see: http://www.cdicarlo.com/paper_04maynard.htm

from this reference:

"...when I had saw them at the Air Canada Centre in Toronto, during their first song, "The Grudge", someone threw an American flag onto the stage. Immediately, the bassist, Justin Chancellor, kicked the flag off to the side where a roadie grabbed it and took it off stage.

"MK: "Yea, I wanted to piss on it. The audacity that some people would assume that we're going to wave the flag and turn what we believe is a spiritual endeavour focussing on self-reflection and discovery into some kind of cheesy American propagandist movement, was the furthest thing from our minds"."

also can't find it mentioned in http://www.toolband.com/news/letter/2001_09.php or http://www.toolband.com/news/letter/2001_10.php, although this doesn't mean it didn't happen.

it's quoted without a source so it really shouldn't be here anyway but im just adding info so maybe its not added again

hugs and kisses, El hombre de haha 06:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are still the concert reviews at t.d.n. link. The concert was rescheduled, but there was no flag waving going on rather an appeal to the crowd to turn the emotional turmoil into s.th. positive and some other stuff. Maybe I will add the story to the article.. but truthfully --Johnnyw talk 09:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

google rating

Just wanted to let everyone know that the article is now listed on 2nd spot behind tollband.com, followed by t.d.n. on 3rd in the result for search for "tool" at google. I am amazed! Two years ago, the article wasn't even in the top twenty.. Well seems like we're doing s.th. right... --Johnnyw talk 10:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Rating

I rated this article as a B because of original research in the quotes mainly in the "New tour" section. I also rated the article B because of the "Trivia" section. If you want more advice, seek a WP:Peer Review before submitting this article to WP:GA. Cheers! Real96 01:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I will remove the OR, I believe there should be sources to replace them.. Afterwards I will go through the trivia and then find a replacement for the infobox image. Then, a peer review will follow =) --Johnnyw talk 17:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Brodsky?

A user from the IP address 67.39.198.134 enlightened us with

"Jeff Brodsky was the original bassist who left the band to pursue a side project known as Lotus Pedal."

and with that removed the entire Notes section. I can't confirm any of this information either... Anyone? --oKtosiTe - talk 19:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This bio here says that Lotus Pedal exists since 2001. Their own site sees them currently recording some new demos. Looks like an attempt at a promo-stunt to me =) --Johnnyw talk 20:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking too, but I didn't have the time to dig into it... thanks. --oKtosiTe talk 15:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

what's up with this sudden "appearence" of never-before discovered band members?

Twice, an anonymous user has added some Chris Floyd, apparently a friend of Keenan's, as the bass player that should succeed d'Amour to the article. A google search for "Chris Floyd" tool bass keenan -wikipedia reveals 6 hits, all unrelated. Of course I will revert again, unless somehow, a reference can be found. --Johnnyw talk 10:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I watched South Park yesterday. Kyle revealed a secret plan by the British to invade the US using Myspace profiles to reveal the identities of the terrorists. Behold! Here is the myspace profile of a "cdfloyd85", 21 years, Sierra Vista, Arizona (link). Of course, Tool is listed as one of his primary musical interests. Well, that's was that. --Johnnyw talk 10:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? Google hasn't caught up then. –Pomte 14:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

parabola 1 hour nonstop broadcast on mtv 2 (uk)

"UK music channel MTV 2 aired the music video repeatedly for a full hour on it's first night of release."

If this is true, and I take it to mean that they played "Parabola" non-stop for an hour straight, then it's fairly interesting and could be added to Parabola (song). –Pomte 14:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall some forum entry about that some while ago. We need a reliable source and then we could add it to the Parabola entry, I agree. But a mentioning in the band bio is a bit too much I think. --Johnnyw talk 15:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)