Talk:Tool (band)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Reference 87

Source for "Volto": (so that I'm not labeled as a 'vandalist/spammer' again by an incompetent: http://www.voltoband.com/main.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.10.89.5 (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The link is dead (Cafeeine)--88.218.65.58 (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Tool workspace

What are the three Grammy Awards Tool has won? And why isn't there an awards section? Lara❤Love 00:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• 40th Grammy Awards (1997) - Best Metal Album: Ænima
• 44th Grammy Awards (2001) - Best Metal Performance: "Schism", Lateralus
• 49th Grammy Awards (2006) - Best Hard Rock Performance: "Vicarious", 10,000 Days

Lara❤Love 02:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

also 50th Grammy Awards (2007) - Best Hard Rock Performance: "The Pot", 10,000 Days. 24.159.37.248 (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That was a nom. They didn't win. Lara❤Love 07:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Musical inspirations
• Performance rave Lara❤Love 03:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

During the FAC it was decided to keep the article as compact as possible (it's already quite extensive and relatively large in size). That's why the info is in the biography only. The Grammys won are: in 1998 in Best Metal Performance for "Ænema", the same category in 2001 for "Schism", and in 2006 in best recording package for 10,000 days. Johnnyw talk 08:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Ænema" was mentioned to be a Grammy winner three times in one section; I've removed one instance to reduce repetition. "Grammy" appears a lot of times elsewhere, probably too much for the average Tool fan's liking, but there is unavoidable overlap across sections. –Pomte 09:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Very good article. I think it suffered a few minor changes since FA, but it is really good. I'm making little tweaks, but don't worry, I'm not making any major changes. Lara❤Love 15:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you =) Yes, I was pretty busy over the last weeks and was taken by surprise by some changes that occurred in the meantime, like the introduction of the cquote-templates etc.. Also, the League of Copyeditors responded to my request I made some months ago, and is currently working on the article. Feels good to see the article in the hands of some well meaning fellow editors! Johnnyw talk 18:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference in the image box of the logo

The reference used in the image box of the wrench logo does not seem to lead to any reference that is actually about Tool. It actually leads to some articles & news releases about Snoop Dogg. Is there a way this can be fixed and re-referenced? Or was the reference time-sensitive and disappeared after the access date? There is a rather contentious debate going on about the use of band logos in articles in which I cited this article as a good example of how a logo can add to the informational value of an article, but then the discrepancy in the reference was brought to my attention. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have linked to an archived version of that page. The more relevant part though is in the paragraph to the left of the logo. –Pomte 00:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We had been looking to restore some other info on their logos. Here's a source that mentions the Lateralus eyes.

Steve Morse (2002-08-17). "Tool hammers out a multimedia triumph" (fee required). The Boston Globe. Retrieved 2008-01-26. There were white-lit wires above the stage that looked like lightning flashes, along with floating black balls clustered together like atoms, and a curtain showing a sleepy-eyed Nefertiti figure surrounded by two fiercely protruding male skull faces, as well as, later, a curtain covered with psychedelic eyes, much like the logo of the 1960s band the 13th Floor Elevators. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

–Pomte 00:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's good you fixed the reference. However, the text to the left of the logo is about the band name, not directly about the logo itself. Could you make it more clearly about the image? Gimmetrow 06:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the restoration of the image. With the quote: "Tool is exactly what it sounds like: It's a big dick. It's a wrench.... we are... your tool; use us as a catalyst in your process of finding out whatever it is you need to find out, or whatever it is you're trying to achieve." it is clearly descriptive of the wrench image, and the caption explains that it was an early logo. Lara❤Love 20:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's apparently been decided that saying who designed it or when is sufficient commentary, so the logo's fine. Gimmetrow 09:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record I don't agree that it's sufficient. I've added a source that mentions their "phallic hardware" imagery, though it's stretching it because it doesn't mention the wrench. –Pomte 15:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think for the strongest fair use claim there should ideally be discussion of graphical elements of an image, or enough content to have a stand-alone non-stub article about the picture/image itself. But it seems few are willing to require this, as it would involve removing most logos of any sort. Gimmetrow 18:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Tool's Influence: Implicit Condemnation Incorrect?

I haven't contributed for over a year, but I check up on this article a lot. You guys do a great job. I noticed this section, though, and take issue:

"Sean Richardson of The Boston Phoenix sees System of a Down, Deftones and Breaking Benjamin as examples of Tool's "towering influence" on the genre.[89] Moreover, Keenan's unique style of singing has been repeatedly seen as influencing artists such as Pete Loeffler of Chevelle.[90][91] When asked about "these bands who list Tool as an influence" during an interview with the Australian music magazine Drum Media, Keenan replied:

I do not really see the connection. Because there is some intensity in some of our songs, I think these bands pick up the surface noise, and that's their influence.... When I hear these loud, goofy posturing idiots jumping up and down, more concerned about their hairdos than their music, it's just we do not do that, what am I missing? There's nothing to the music that moves me, or compels me to want to sit down and listen to it, which is unfortunate. Maybe I'm just a cynical old bastard.[92]"

I think Maynard was responding at the time to two particular bands who had publicly made a point of citing Tool as an influence... that is to say, Kid Rock and Limp Bizkit. I was a fan at the time and can recall hearing their comments, and a few months later these aforementioned comments by Maynard. Besides those two bands, the only other musicians I have seen go out of their way to praise Tool have been In Living Color and King Crimson's Robert Fripp, and their praise was much less publicized. Frannly, I feel Keenan was trying to downplay any association Tool could have with Limp Bizkit or Kid Rock.

Let's try to find some documentation about who Keenan was really referring to here, or, if nothing else, try to downplay the implicit condemnation it makes it seem like he's aiming at the previously mentioned bands. I doubt Maynard actually has such thoughts regarding the Deftones, for one, considering he's collaborated with them.

I know, I know, "This guy's never around, who is he to criticize?", but I really think this is something we need to correct. If I don't see anyone picking up the slack, I'll just have to find evidence myself...

And that said, I apologize for never being around. Blame college.--Cassius987 (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Cassius, great to read from you! But your comment is right on the spot. Keenan always mocked the classic nu metal bands in particular - I never read him criticizing SOAD and Deftones in the same way. We should clarify this. Hope you're doing great at college.. I'll hopefully be done in a year or so :) Johnnyw talk 09:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the misleading quote for now. Even if we add Limp Bizkit/Kid Rock to the article, it'd be original research to claim Maynard is referring about them in this particular quote. –Pomte 00:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I recall this much: Limp Bizkit and Kid Rock voiced their support on various outlets (covering Tool, mentioning them on VH1's various countdown shows...), and within a year Maynard had made the comment about "goofy posturing". That's how I made the connection. Sorry, at the time I didn't write it down or keep track of sources, but hopefully what I've said clarifies what I was getting at. Oh, and Johnny, same for me, 1 year left! Then it's off to grad school to work in botanopharmacology (I hope)...Cassius987 (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Tool members offended by APC?

Keenan said here in 2001 that the other members of Tool were initially offended and jealous when he started APC. Is he serious? Should we put this in? скоморохъ ^ѧ 17:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone's guess as to whether he is serious, but note he follows that up with post-Lateralus (not even Ænima) talk. –Pomte 00:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible error

It appears there maybe an error in this article. It claims Tool was formed in 1990, but this book (may I also comment that books have to be checked over for accuracy for publishing) suggest Tool formed in 1991. Of course, I may be wrong in this, but I'm willing to discuss the matter. Qst (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, the 1990 date is not verified in the article, but we should wait until User:Johnnyw sees this before changing anything, given that he is familiar with the source material. скоморохъ ^ѧ 20:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This was an issue I noted when expanding Maynard's article. It appears to me, from various sources, that Adam and Maynard paired up in 1990, but it wasn't until 1991 that Danny and Paul joined. Which, in my opinion, would have formation of Tool be in 1991, as opposed to the idea that came in 1990. Lara❤Love 21:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The confusion may be that the idea to form a band came in 1990 but the parts didn't come together until 1991. I'd like to wait for Johnny's input as well though, since he is very thorough. daveh4h 21:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi folks. Well, to be honest, there are quite a few that say 1991, although most that were thorough enough to be a contribution to this article say 1990. The Tool FAQ and AMG for example say 1990. A quick google site search over the transcriptions at t.d.n offer several sources that agree: [1] (Canadian Press says they formed in 1990 and were signed 1991), [2] (Drum Media saw them on-stage in 1990), [3] (Australian Guitar says the "emerged" in 1990), etc... Considering that the sources we used all agreed that they were signed in 1991, and the Kitts book on Nu-metal states that Keenan and Jones met in 1989, a formation in 1990 seemed plausible... To further illustrate the dilemma: the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia you cite above says 1991, the Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music says 1990.. ([4]) What do you think? Johnnyw talk 21:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

consistent citation style

I would like to remind all editors to keep the citation style consistent. During the FAC process, it was requested to remove "quote=" parameter from the citation templates and make no exceptions if possible. Thanks and best wishes, Johnnyw talk 22:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Legal battles put a great strain on the band

During a recent edit "These legal battles put great strain on the band and delayed work on their next album. has been removed from the article. I don't see the reason why. Actually, I recall an interview with Keenan where he stated some close to that these legal battles made creative work almost impossible during that time. Do I miss something? Johnnyw talk 22:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Has this been brought up before?

33 Things You Should Know About Tool

4 THEY STRESS OVER THEIR WIKIPEDIA ENTRY The band’s Wikipedia page states that Keenan met Tool guitarist Adam Jones through Rage Against the Machine shredder Tom Morello. “That is untrue,” says Jones, who went to high school with Morello in Libertyville, Illinois. “We played together in a band called the Electric Sheep. We were terrible.” Lara❤Love 03:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It was brought up here. daveh4h 07:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. :) Lara❤Love 06:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

New Tool Album

The Tool MySpace profile just posted a bulliten that said "Didn't win. However, new album soon." Regarding the Grammy awards. I don't know if this can make it into the article or not if it's not a good enough source. Tabor (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like they deleted it. Nevermind. Tabor (talk) 06:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well now they made a new one saying "No Grammy. New album, yes." Tabor (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tabor, just a quick question: what tool myspace profile? Afaik, there is no such thing. The only official ones I know of are the /adamjonestv and /censorshipisacancer (MJK) (neither of them link to any tool sites besides the ones we list in this article). Since Keenan must be quite busy with Puscifer at the moment I highly doubt that there will be anything apart from s.th. like the long awaited live DVD in the near future.... Best wishes, Johnnyw talk 23:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=53384054 This one right here. Tabor (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That one's probably fake, considering this one. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 01:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. /tooltheband has 50000+ friends, videos, music, etc, and tool-related top friends, whereas /tool has 518 friends (less than I have, and I'm not exactly notable) and no music, videos, or tool-related friends. --Evan ¤ Seeds 02:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Well, the one I posted is operated by Zomba, so they could both be genuine. It's so hard to tell on MySpace in general. But I still don't see any posts about the album on the one you posted. Not that it really matters, since there are other sources for this. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 02:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, it was a bulliten, so unless you are a friend of that profile, it won't show up. Tabor (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Band profiles are set up under the music layout. The stand-alone player and YouTube videos are not indicative of an official page either. Also, official pages generally state that they are just that. The first is a fan page, which is also validated by the hometown being set as Ravenna, Ohio. If one of the two is official, it would be the one posted by 5th Eye. Lara❤Love 04:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My bad, i suppose you're right. Though, looking on it now, I doubt either are official. --Evan ¤ Seeds 05:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that Tool will have their own myspace page any time soon. Considering that Blair does all the talking for them and he has toolband.com and toolarmy.com as his domain, why should they? (Anyways, the one claiming to be operated by Zomba uses the Revolver cover as a logo.. come on...) Johnnyw talk 13:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Here you go guys [5] . He says they're working on new material. It takes a long time for them to make an album. I would be cautious about reading between the lines and thinking they're coming out with one this year, or even next. Especially how Danny and Maynard are notorious for dropping deception bombs on media, like MTV. Wikidan829 (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

MUST!

Why the fuck doesn't this have a goddamn Lock on it so that only regestered users can edit it!?!?

YaBoiKrakerz

• why does it need one? hellboy (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Vandelism!
    • Well make a request to the admins if you feel that strongly about it. Personally I don't see the need. hellboy (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well yeah we kinda need it if you ask me, ask CSCWEM however he isn't on much...

and one more thing? Do we REALLY need all those music samples I mean there's like nearly over 7!

YaBoiKrakerz

The level of vandalism doesn't warrant protection at this time. And there are only 4 music samples. One for each album. Lara❤Love 20:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Progressive Metal/Rock?

No way, they are Experimental Rock/Metal, not progressive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.107.83 (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

how are they experimental prog is it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.164.101 (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The current genres have been long-established as working just fine. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 03:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Dead Ref Link

The link for Reference 96 is dead. http://web.archive.org/web/20020806185740/toolband.com/news/ --Hobo (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not Notable

Tool are just a heavy metal band. Financially successful they might be but they're not particularly important to the world outside of rock music, which is hardly something that has important implications for humankind. I propose this article be deleted as not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.144.42 (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, loads of Wikipedians, especially those who promoted this to a featured article, would definitely disagree with you. Not to mention that they pass notability guidelines. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 19:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Troll alert. Rehevkor (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it's hard to tell between a troll and an idiot. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 20:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I call troll, if only because of the mostly correct grammar. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

HAHAHAAA !!! Funny BOY ! Make a request for deletion of the Beatles! Or Metallica.  LYKANTROP  18:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Opium Den: The Bootleg Album

I was just wondering if anybody has come across the Opium Den album. It has the track list:

1. 'Sober' [Early Demo]
2. 'Jerk-Off' [Early Demo]
3. 'Cold And Ugly' [Early Demo]
4. 'Part Of Me' [Early Demo]
5. 'Hush' [Early Demo]
6. 'Crawl Away' [Early Demo]
7. 'Sober' [Live Demo]
8. 'Swamp Song' [Live Demo]
9. 'Opiate' [Live Demo]
10. 'Bottom' [Live Demo]
11. 'Jerk-Off' [Live Demo]

Has some variations in lyrics to later albums... Tool-apc (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Two or three Grammys?

"Tool is an American, two times Grammy Award winning progressive rock band that was formed in 1990 in Los Angeles, California. The band have sold over 13 million records worldwide, and consists of drummer Danny Carey, bassist Justin Chancellor, guitarist Adam Jones, and vocalist Maynard James Keenan. Tool has won three Grammy Awards, hosted worldwide tours, and produced albums which have performed well on international music charts due to their cult status in the world of music.[1]"

I'm pretty sure Tool can't be a two times Grammy Award winning band that has won three Grammy Awards. Can they?--Cassius987 (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I thought they won 3 grammys, two for artwork (Aenima and 10000 Days) and one for Best Rock Performance (or was it metal? I can never remember) hellboy (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Instruments.

Wouldn't it make sense to mention which of the band members plays which instrument / does the vocals? Either in a seperate section, or in small parenthesis next to their names within the infobox? ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 15:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It used to; I guess someone removed it. A members section ought to be in there somewhere. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 16:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to do that, not a big thing. Though, I wonder if a whole section for just 4 lines of band members is a little redundant and putting the instruments next to their names in the infobox would make more sense, so i'm waiting for more comments. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 10:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: I would assume that it has been removed because the instruments are mentioned in the first lines of the text. Though, I think someone who opens this article because he wants to know (like i did) "Hm, what was the guitarists name again?" would prefer to see it in a list rather than having to read through the first paragraph. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 10:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be just 4 lines; Paul d'Amour would be mentioned somewhere in there too. But, it's a section basically required by the music Wikiprojects, so redundant or not it should go there. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 14:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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

[6] 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)

The new album is being worked on and according to Tool is hoping to be due by the end of this year 1:19, 2 August 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zak Hammat (talk • contribs)

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)

quit adressing tool as a rock band

they are the blueprint for alternative metal, and 1/2 prog albums means nothing, they are still an alternative band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.220.148 (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not a reason to "quit addressing them as a rock band". Those terms fall under the umbrella of rock band. That's like saying "don't call them a musical group, they play alternative metal!".

Additionally, they are listed as alt metal in the info box. They just took a more vague term, like "rock", because everyone disagrees what they're "main genre" should be. But most of what people argue about still falls under "rock". It's compromise of sorts. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Avant garde metal

As Tool is also catogarized as avant-garde metal in the article itself, I am going to add it to the genre (as it is not listed in the genres section) if no one objects. Myxomatosis75 (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that calls them that? My ctrl-F search didn't see that label anywhere except for as a category at the bottom of the article... Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"progressive"

Tool is not progressive, by any stretch of the word. They write long songs. That by itself doesn't equate to progressive music. There is a certain level of musical proficiency (generally but not exclusively linked to formal musical instruction) that Tool simply does not have to be truly considered progressive. Different? Sure. Progressive? No. 2CrudeDudes (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

And you base this on? All I see is "They're not progressive because they have long songs"... which is correct. They're progressive because their songs don't follow a defined structure (ie verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus), because they use musical techniques that are new, unique, and eclectic, because they experiment, because they use odd-metres, polyrhythm and poly metring, because their lyrics are abstract, because they make concept albums and album oriented music (songs that segue into each other) and because countless reliable sources describe them as progressive. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Floydian pretty much wrote the exact response I would have written had I responded a few minutes earlier. I support this 100%. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Tool's instrumentation and composition do not match the level of proficiency or complexity of what is generally considered progressive. The fact that Tool's music is slow is no excuse for it being so simple. Listen to Pink Floyd, King Diamond, or Dream Theater and then listen to Tool, and tell me they're musicians of the same caliber. Not by a long shot. Tool uses progressive elements, yes. But they also use tribal percussion and nobody is going out of the way to call them "tribal music".2CrudeDudes (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, reliable sources trump you personal viewpoints. I'm not saying your right or wrong, I'm just saying that plenty of reliable sources call them progressive, and as such, it should be represented that way in this Wikipedia article. Please read WP:VERIFY. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

So far, I haven't seen any "reliable" sources call Tool "progressive". There is an AllMusic article written by a guy that's been covering electronic music most of his career, there's a Rolling Stone article that hints at (but doesn't flat out call it "progressive"), and a book about "psychedelic music", which I'm not even sure is necessarily related. Yes, some bands were both, but they're different labels for a reason. 2CrudeDudes (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

So, in my first 2 minutes of source searching I found:

• A Popmatters review here calls them flat out "progressive rock" twice.
• A Pitchfork review which indirectly labels them as "progressive rock". (The sentence doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless they're calling them it.)

Both sources have consensus from editors that they are useable, reliable sources, per WP:ALBUM/REVSITE. That didn't take very long, so I can't help but think there are plenty more out there. Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

And really, if you want simple, most Floyd songs are two chords repeated for 10 minutes. "what is generally considered progressive." is entirely subjective. So, we use what music experts consider to be progressive, and they consider Tool to be progressive. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"most Floyd songs are two chords repeated for 10 minutes. " The solo in "Comfortably Numb" alone proves you've clearly never listened to Pink Floyd. What "music experts"? Journalism majors writing editorials for music websites with no background in music theory? 2CrudeDudes (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You're arguing the wrong points. It doesn't matter who's the bigger Floyd fan or how many chords they play. Regardless of how you may feel about the state of music journalism, on Wikipedia, we use reliable sources to back up information, especially if it's controversial/touchy stuff like genre and whatnot. It's very simple; provide sources backing up what you want to say, or it's very likely to be removed, especially at an article for such a big name topic like this band. See this link for information on how to find sources that are useable around here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Tool fits the definition of progressive because their lead guitar section is quite jazz-oriented, their songs are written in uneven key and time signatures and most of the other features you can find here.Moreover, there are multiple third party sources available which label them as progressive as Sergecross73 and Floydian have mentioned above. Bloomgloom talk 11:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider Tool a progressive rock or progressive metal band. The similarities to progressive rock amount to most songs being longer than average, and many using "irregular" time signatures. But that is all of it. If you compare Tool to Yes or Dream Theater, they are worlds apart. Also, I seem to remember reading a Keenan interview (I forgot where) in which he rejects the label "progressive metal" for his music. In fact, there is a stronger affinity to progressive house in the repetitive structure of the tracks which become gradually denser towards the end, though the differences are huge even here (Tool is rock, not house; and progressive house usually is in 4/4). I would say that Keenan has created his own music genre, and perhaps the best term for this is toolcore or something like that. --WeepingElf (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but your line of reasoning, like "2CrudeDudes" is based off of your own personal analysis, not reliable sources, of which is Wikipedia's foundation. Reliable sources call them progressive. Additionally, made up terms don't convey any sort of message to anyone who isn't familiar with the band. I mean, I'll assume you're not familiar with the band The Veer Union. Does calling them "Veercore" convey any sort of meaning to you? Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, Tool is called a "progressive" rock band in many sources - there is no point in denying that. Yet, my point is that this usage of the word is distinct from that which has been in use since about 1970 or so. So "progressive rock" now has (at least) two different meanings: one being the tradition of music that began with bands such as Yes, Pink Floyd or King Crimson in the late 1960s, and one being the tradition of music that Tool is a part of. In the early 1970s, some people in Germany used the term "progressive Rockmusik" for radical left proto-punk bands such as Floh de Cologne or Ton Steine Scherben. Are those progressive rock bands? Nope. (And what regards the word "toolcore", it indeed means nothing and does nothing to describe the music of Tool; you are right in that.) WeepingElf (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

What you're describing tends to happen to music genre in general over time. At one point The Clash was representative of punk rock, where nowadays, it's something closer to Fall Out Boy. It happens. If you're on some music messageboard or something you can argue endlessly on whether or not that's "correct", but here, if reliable sources can confirm it, it can probably be included to some degree. Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair. This is just a battle of words, and we can close this matter. Tool may not be progressive rock in the "original" sense of the word, but I can see why many people consider them "progressive rock" - meanings of words change, especially in a field as fast-changing as popular music. --WeepingElf (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for list-defined references

The reason I am going through the article right now and naming the references is because this is a preliminary step to converting the article to WP:list-defined references. Doing this conversion is a great technique that gets the citations out of the prose and places them in a separate References section at the bottom. Please have a look at Sean Combs as an example of an article that has been converted to this system. I expect to have time to do the actual conversion in the next week or so if no one raises any objections. I will then watch-list the article and help maintain the system moving forward. Discussion and questions are welcome. -- Dianna (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Though I see no objection to your changes, do note that WP:CITEVAR recommends against changing established reference styles used in articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I have indeed heard of CITEVAR, and it says it's okay to proceed after first opening a discussion on the talk page to seek consensus. This step was followed; the above notice was posted here on Sept 5, and the work was undertaken on September 23, when no objections had been raised. -- Dianna (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand, and it's courteous of you. Just wanted to make sure you were familiar with it, because I've had experiences where people who have no heavy involvement in a page change reference styles on GA or FA articles without discussion or consensus. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... tool is a band that has sold over 15 million albums and has a avid fan base. I dont see why it would be deleted. --70.188.158.186 (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a false alarm; just some vandalism. -- Dianna (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

influences / genres

if you want to talk about genres, you have to recognize that tool also has a substantial fan base that exists firmly in the punk/hardcore universe and both firmly rejects tool as a metal band and anything to do with metal altogether. i couldn't begin to understand how anybody could approach putting tool into a genre without pulling out influences from the like of black flag, the dead kennedys, minor threat, fugazi, swans, soundgarden..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.24.43 (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to support any of these connections? Sergecross73 msg me 19:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

i don't honestly have time to do a research essay on tool. but you'd have to be either deaf or ignorant to not be able to pull out both rollins and swans as tremendously large influences. nor is the fact that maynard approached lyrical topics that are much more punk than metal some kind of secret or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.24.43 (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless someone digs up reliable sources that support, it shouldn't go in the article, simple as that. Read WP:VERIFY. Sergecross73 msg me 19:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

right. so, can we get somebody to clean this up, please?

i do have to point out that in this case it may require some primary research, because mainstream music journalists in the 90s were generally still listening to motley crue, and had absolutely no concept of 80s punk. i'll give you a heads up, though. i know that maynard has actually collaborated with jarboe. maybe look for some interview sources. i also know that rollins and tool toured together in the early 90s, so there might be some source material there. regarding the others, i'm not quite sure where to look, but i'm sure it's out there. i mean, if they were listening to the melvins, i promise you they were listening to soundgarden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.24.43 (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

maybe i should explain this just a tad more for the person that ends up doing this research, as i expect that person will be a little younger. what happened in the early 90s was that the underground went mainstream. i know you're thinking you've seen that happen in your lifetime with like emo or something, but you really haven't; entire genres that were curated by small, independent labels started selling platinum records over night. nothing like it had happened before, and nothing like it has happened since. so, all of a sudden, you had mainstream music journalists being forced to cover underground music, and because they had absolutely no idea how to do so, all kinds of bullshit got thrown around in the mainstream music press - the mainstream music press that wiki is asking for as a source. now, i'm an academic, so i get that and am not rubbing up against it too much, only to point out that in this case you *need* to go beyond that music press to understand, you need to rely on primary sources. there were a slew of acts that ended up completely misunderstood as a result of this upheaval, tool being one of the most drastic of them. as the mainstream music journalists could only understand the music through it's tedious connection to 70s arena rock, an influence that is no doubt there but not dominant, that was how they ended up being marketed, even though the roots of the sound actually lie in the anti-thesis of such a thing. punk was a reaction to arena rock; every punk kid grew up on arena rock. this is ultimately why people get so confused about tool and why you have arguments about whether they are "progressive" or not, based on the difficulty of their playing. in fact, if you're familiar with early hardcore, it's quite obvious where adam jones gets his guitar style from; it's certainly a lot more east bay ray than robert fripp, but you'd be daft if you were to expect a writer at spin or rolling stone to understand that in 1991. so, the goal here needs to be to avoid major rock music publications and get the information straight from the band members. the media has never remotely understood this band at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.24.43 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your interesting comments. Unfortunately some of what you are saying demonstrates a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Our content guidelines call for us to rely on good-quality secondary sources to prepare our articles: books, journal articles, better-quality websites, and so on: WP:reliable sources. Primary sources are avoided. We also don't add stuff that we "know" unless we have reliable sources to back it up. We don't engage in speculation or draw conclusions that don't appear in the sources; the relevant policy is WP:original research. I understand that you don't agree with some of the things the article has to say about the band but until such time as acceptable sources can be found for the edits you propose, the material cannot go in the article. — Dianna (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Alright, and I'd like to add, for this hypothetical future researcher, to be mindful of things like identifying reliable sources and avoiding original research. Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Missing Album

Just thought I'd point out that I didn't see any mention of their album Opiate, which I believe was actually their first album, though I could be mistaken. Would just hate to see anyone miss out on that awesome album. One of my favorites due to the fact that you can see/hear the rawness of the band before the refined themselves over the years. Definitely a great listen!

68.145.67.217 (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)M. H.

There is mention of Opiate within Early Years and the Undertow subsections. The only reason there is no direct Opiate subsection is due to the lack of material and resources. It seems more logical to lump 72826 and Opiate together as a description of their Earlier Years and then provide more extensive information on their studio releases. Truth0421 (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Last line of the intro

"The relationship between the band and today's music industry is ambivalent, at times marked by censorship and the band members' insistence on privacy." - This line has bothered me for years. I can only recall a single song where Maynard's lyrics touch on censorship and privacy in a meaningful way, and that was from their EP. It hardly seems representative of the band's body of work, which is generally much more philosophical and abstract. Would anyone object to removing it? LokiiT (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think you're misinterpreting the statement. I don't think it's a reference to lyrical content, I think it more has to do with the band's actual relationship to the media. (For example, MJK can be a difficult interview, the band doesn't tend to do the typical "band photo" promo stuff, they take as long as they want to make albums, troll their fanbase with hoax news, etc etc.) I think it should stay on those grounds... Sergecross73 msg me 12:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

In particular, take a look at the Undertow and Ænima parts of the article, it includes some further examples of censorship, boycotts by Wal-Mart, public hearings of MJK about their song lyrics.. I agree that this relationship might be considered less strained later on. Johnnyw talk 08:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Insistence on Privacy

With the band members having acquired public twitter- and instagram-accounts etc, and Maynard having made a movie about his wine, and being relatively PR-enthusiastic with Puscifer and earlier A Perfect Circle, is it as relevant to describe them as being insistent on their privacy? I think it was more relevant during the Aenima- and Lateralus-years. Revan (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

All the examples you gave were "not Tool" though, just singular members and side-projects. If we're talking about the actual band, I think it's true, considering we're into the 7th year since their last album, and we know virtually nothing about it, not to mention, its still true for decades past... Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. It must have been how the sentence refers to the singular members' own (and not necessarily the band's) privacy that puzzled me, is all. Revan (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps maybe we should remove the word "member", so it refers more to the band collectively, which seems to be more of the case in regards to past and present. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that would be inaccurate at all. Revan (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Why was this deleted? Thanks!

March 20, 2013, an interview by Kory Grow was published on Spin.com that featured Adam Jones. Grow states, "The salt-and-pepper-haired six-stringer, 48, spoke to us from his home, where he was spending a day "being a bum," as he recovers from a marathon music-writing session for Tool's new album." In the article, referring to the new album's recording process, Jones says: "We're older guys now. The band has changed drastically. We're very distant people now and have our own lives. It's always been like that. It's been a collective perspective even from the start, but now it's much more diverse. And I'm not saying that's bad. It's just different. So writing is a different perspective now. It's taken a little longer. And besides that, we've had a couple major setbacks that we're recovering from. I'm calling March "March Madness" because I've been really trying to kick ass and focus on this thing and get it to a point where we're all happy. I really love those guys. And people grow and they change; it's just like a relationship. You just have to compromise and respect each other. It's just like life. It's like anything else. That's where it's at." Lateralus8305 (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Lateralus8305

That quote is way too long, and doesn't really say that much other than its taking a long time, which he article already makes pretty clear. It could maybe be argued that a drastically shortened version could be useful, but not all that junk about his his hair, age, etc. Also, it shouldn't be quoting both the article writer and Jones at the same time like that. Sergecross73 msg me 10:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Be weary of Recentism. The quote might be relevant now but in a few years it's going to be horrendously out of place. Яehevkor ✉ 14:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Unless there's some sort of retraction he made, you can't just discount a source because you disagree with it. In regards to prog, several prog genre area already very present in the article, so you don't need to convince anyone of that one. Alt metal is only listed first because they're listed in alphabetical order. Sergecross73 msg me 17:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

In regards to this edit, no one objected to adding alternative rock, but at least 2 editors now oppose the removing of alt metal, so you should not be removing it in order to add alt rock. Even with adding alt rock, I'd wait to see if others support or oppose its inclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I know I am months late for this discussion, but as I was an editor of this article for a long time during its transition to FA status and we had many discussions about this then, too. As far as I recall, the satisfying conclusion was to see these style attributions in context, specifically when they were made! So, when alt rock, heavy metal, alt metal, prog rock etc. where a trend (in music and music journalism as well) Tool was frequently attributed that specific rock sub-genre. That is also why the beginning of the article just states "rock band". If your read the full bio of this article, you will see how these attributions shift over time! Does that help? Thanks Serge for your reasonable comments and Realpunkmusic for your suggestions. Johnnyw talk 08:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Sammy Hagar

I really don't know how reliable this is, but just FYI:

https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/maynard_james_keenan_announces_sammy_hagar_will_replace_him_as_new_tool_singer.html

TimothyJosephWood 14:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

...The source is reliable if written by staff, but that was definitely an April Fools Joke... Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I...I thought we were done with this. Someone needs to tell google news. TimothyJosephWood 15:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Haha, its fine. For the casual fan, its less clear how ridiculous of a move this would be for these two parties. And it looks like you're not alone either. Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

2017 source

• https://consequenceofsound.net/2017/01/maynard-james-keenan-suggests-new-tool-album-has-hit-roadblocks/ - Came across this while working on the A Perfect Circle article. This source kind of covers what I suspected when I had heard that APC was reforming. It's somewhat speculative, but speculation can be allowed when written by reliable sources and given in the correct context. (And its a pretty logical conclusion anyways.) Figured I'd mention it here first. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tool (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121013020808/http://www.nyrock.com/interviews/2000/apc_int.asp to http://www.nyrock.com/interviews/2000/apc_int.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/79641/tools-lateralus-leads-five-top-10-debuts
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=18269
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927223914/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=49079 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=49079

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Artists influenced

Factory 81 cited Tool as an influence.

Not sure it's worth mentioning. A ton of bands from 1990s to present say that, Factory 81 is hardly a noteworthy one... Sergecross73 msg me 22:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Tool (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/687mpTq2f?url=http://www.toolarmy.com/toolband/lachrymology/lachrymology.php?key=fob to http://www.toolarmy.com/toolband/lachrymology/lachrymology.php?key=fob
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/687mq5ny3?url=http://exclaim.ca/Features/Timeline/tool-stepping_out_from_shadows to http://www.exclaim.ca/articles/multiarticlesub.aspx?csid1=19&csid2=9&fid1=167
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Gucq7UpG?url=http://toolshed.down.net/video/stinkfist/track1.html to http://toolshed.down.net/video/stinkfist/track1.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6GucqleCy?url=http://toolshed.down.net/news/aprilfools97.html to http://toolshed.down.net/news/aprilfools97.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6GucwW8KH?url=http://toolshed.down.net/articles/text/allstar.nov.2000.html to http://toolshed.down.net/articles/text/allstar.nov.2000.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Gucy0ct0?url=http://toolshed.down.net/news/oldnews/old0101.html to http://toolshed.down.net/news/oldnews/old0101.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Gud2M0Vv?url=http://www.avclub.com/articles/tool-lateralus,22001/ to http://www.avclub.com/articles/tool-lateralus,22001/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071021025858/http://www.toolband.com/news/index.html to http://www.toolband.com/news/index.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6GudlvS9v?url=http://toolshed.down.net/articles/index.php?action=view-article to http://toolshed.down.net/articles/index.php?action=view-article&id=June_2001--Guitar_Player.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6GudoEeEX?url=http://www.toolband.com/news/letter/2006_07.php to http://www.toolband.com/news/letter/2006_07.php
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Gudv4efY?url=http://www.toolband.com/news/letter/2001_09.php to http://www.toolband.com/news/letter/2001_09.php
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6GudvlBD2?url=http://toolshed.down.net/articles/index.php?action=view-article to http://toolshed.down.net/articles/index.php?action=view-article&id=May_2001--The_Boston_Phoenix.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6GudwL733?url=http://livedesignonline.com/concerts/tool_time to http://livedesignonline.com/concerts/tool_time/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071021025858/http://www.toolband.com/news/index.html to http://www.toolband.com/news/index.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6GudyAFGj?url=http://www.blistering.com/fastpage/fpengine.php/link/1/templateid/4970/tempidx/5009/menuid/5 to http://www.blistering.com/fastpage/fpengine.php/link/1/templateid/4970/tempidx/5009/menuid/5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tool (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140911140925/http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060706/news_lz1w06helmet.html to http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060706/news_lz1w06helmet.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160421001623/http://webarchiveproject.org/12805/ to http://webarchiveproject.org/12805/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tool (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114130353/http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/tool/articles/story/5931985/weird_album_title_for_tool to https://www.rollingstone.com/artists/tool/articles/story/5931985/weird_album_title_for_tool

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Evolution album title

Looking for input on this. I can see both sides of it personally.

The upcoming issues of Kerrang magazine, an obviously reliable source, says on it's cover:

TOOL INSIDE THEIR NEW ALBUM "EVOLUTION"!

On one hand, it looks like they're calling their new album Evolution.

On the other hand

1. This hasn't been announced anywhere else.
2. They don't word it like they're announcing it as a name. (Tool announces new album name Evolution or something)
3. It doesn't exactly sound like a Tool album name.
4. They put "Evolution" in quotes - like it could be a direct quote from their talk or something? I notice they didn't put Mania (The Fall Out Boy album) in quotes like that.
5. It seems weird to suddenly be pushing the new Tool album hard when they've got solid plans on doing the A Perfect Circle album first, which is due out Q2 2018 and still doesn't have an album name.

The whole situation is weird.

Thoughts? Input? Any other sources reporting on this yet? Sergecross73 msg me 17:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Source

• https://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/tools-new-album-everything-we-know-w515528 Huge article that links to all sorts of other RS's about the last decade. Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

72826 at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2019

NOTE: In the Grammy section the nomination for "Stinkfist" is missing, as referenced in the Grammy page for Adam. Please add this nomination to accurately account for these: https://www.grammy.com/grammys/artists/adam-jones

thank you. cc Cfcjr75 (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 09:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Release date official?

They showed “August 30” in big letters last night at the show in Birmingham. They never explicitly stated that it was the release date, but it can be heavily implied. It was a great show, though very strange that they didn’t play “Lateralus” or “Sober”... Do any of the sources show that they officially stated this is the release date, or are all the sources assuming the same conclusion from the implication of what the date could mean? — Tha†emoover†here (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

They did the same thing on social media - date without context. But ever single reliable source under the sun is interpreting it as a release date. It’s not official, but likely, and an uphill battle to keep out of the article... Sergecross73 msg me 00:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the sources, as August 30 lines up with the general time that they were expecting to release the album near, but I just wanted to put out the hypothetical possibility that it’s not actually the date (because Tool is weird like that and could just be trolling us all haha) — Tha†emoover†here (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Technically, the best wording would be something to the capacity of “The band mentioned the date at a concert and on their social media account without context, with journalists interpreting it as the albums release date (source, source, source, etc)”. But every music website and fan under the sun is declaring it the release date, so it’s probably not the effort to fight and revert to that wording over and over again, especially when it’s likely that a band member will likely confirm it in an interview shortly and clear this all up. Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

As I had expected, MJK just confirmed it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Fifth album draft

Hello to anyone who comes across this. I have written a draft for Tool's fifth studio album here. While it surely meets the notability requirements as far as sourcing goes - reliable sources have been writing detailed articles for the last decade about it - but the fact that it still doesn't have a name means that it would likely be nominated deletion.

As such, I figured I'd just start a draft for now, and move it into the article space as soon as it has a name. If someone notices that an album name has been announced before I do, you have my permission to move the draft into the article space. I'd much rather we use this - which is more developed than many already published album articles - than going with some two sentence stub someone throws together in minutes just to get something out there, as those sorts of articles often spark deletion/redirect discussions. This draft shouldn't do that at all. Its well-developed. It just needs a name.

Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 00:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Just bumping this, as I imagine a name announcement is imminent, which would mean the draft can (finally) be published. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Possibly today. Sergecross73 msg me 11:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Sales source

• https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/8525883/tool-chart-history-10-things-to-know Sergecross73 msg me 02:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2019

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collide_(band)

The band Collide is also an associated act as they have contributed on more than 1 occasion. 2620:0:E50:210:E4FA:25EA:746B:F7C7 (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - The usual requirement is 2 band members in common. The connection here is zero members, just a guest appearance from Danny Carey? That’s not enough, unless there’s more to be explained here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Live shows and visual effects

The article states

The big screens are used to play back "looped clips that aren't tracked to a song like a music video.

This is inaccurate. In their 2019 live show in Altice Arena, Lisbon, many songs had clips directly from their respective music videos. All the lgiht effects were well coordinated with the songs (to amzing effect btw). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.197.236.71 (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Is this something that can be fixed through extra context? Like perhaps it was accurate during a particular tour or timeframe? Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Last sentence in lede

The last sentence in the lede needs a citation otherwise it will be removed. XenoRasta (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, the entire article is well sourced, and that sentence is just kinda summarizing a number of various things the band has done over the years. What exactly do you doubt conceptually here? Sergecross73 msg me 23:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2020

Tool was nominated for and won the Grammy for Best Metal Performance for their song "7empest" SirBilliam96 (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

 Already done by the time I got here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Lyrics

Hello, fellow Wikipedians,

Could I add the entirety of the lyrics onto tool songs? I am planning on doing this for every song that has a Wikipedia page for it, and its a long project that needs to be approved --246700Sarhan (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

No, please don’t do that. That’s not what an encyclopedia does. You’ll notice that no musicians have that going on here. It’s not necessary anyways. All one has to do is Google “(band name) lyrics” and there’s multiple websites out there for even the most obscure bands/albums/songs. Sergecross73 msg me 20:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah re-reading this makes me realize that is a really bad idea. --246700Sarhan (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

It’s no big deal - it happens all the time. It’s not so much “bad” as it is “just not the place for that.” Sergecross73 msg me 21:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2022

Maynard picture ar the begging of the article shows him with the makeup he uses when playing with A Perfect Circle, a picture in one of the outfits he wear when playing with tool would be far more appropriate. 2603:3020:2467:9100:FDE2:6C8E:6EB4:A9D5 (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please provide an image with acceptable licensing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Opiate should be added under Discography

Instead of making the edit and getting into an edit war, I wanted to see if anyone else agrees with me first, in that Opiate should be included under the Discography list alongside the other full-length albums.

Wikipedia's rule-of-thumb is that non-full-length albums generally shouldn't be included; however, rare exceptions are made when something is considered a major release. Examples can be seen on pages such as Nine Inch Nails (3 EPs), The Beatles (1 EP that later became a full-length & 1 compilation), Guns N' Roses (1 EP), Led Zeppelin (1 compilation), L7 (1 EP that later became a full-length), Mudhoney (1 EP), Peter Frampton (2 live albums), etc. Tool's Opiate falls under this exception. Here are my reasons why:

• It charted on Billboard upon its reissue, and peaked at a respectable #59. If it wasn't a major release, it probably wouldn't have charted at all, nor would it have a reissue possibly.

• It had a single and a music video to promote the release ("Hush"). The song "Opiate" also briefly charted later on in 2019. If it wasn't a major release, it wouldn't have had a song singled out, no pun intended.

• There was a tour and various live shows to promote the release. Since it was Tool's debut offering, they made a big deal out of it. If it wasn't a major release, it would've had a low-key release with no shows to promote it.

• It is certified platinum by the RIAA, selling over a million copies. If it wasn't a major release, it wouldn't have sold nearly that many.

• When Tool's catalog was added to streaming services, it was added alongside the other full-length albums. If it wasn't a major release, it wouldn't have been included.

• Most importantly, the material consists of technically new tracks. It's not a rehashed compilation or a live album, and all 7 of its tracks weren't officially released up until then, nor were any of the tracks added to other Tool albums afterwards.

• In contrast, their demo EP 72826, compilation Salival, and numerous singles shouldn't be included, since they don't fall under the same criteria as above. Xanarki (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, I support this, but would like others to chime in as well. Note that I didn't add direct sources to my points above, but all of them can be easily found on Google. Xanarki (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - This sort of stuff isn't intuitive at all, so it's going to create maintenance and fights over it that weren't there before. It's going to be constant back and forth of passerbys either removing it or adding other ones that shouldn't be on there. Sergecross73 msg me 02:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)