Talk:Tool (band)/Archive 2

Independence Day
Seem to recall something about someone in the band working on the CG for independence day during their legal tribbles. Might have been subterfuge or chaffe, of course. No mention of it in the article currently. -Ozzyslovechild 01:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

About the trivia removal
02:47, 11 January 2006 71.143.113.16 (?Trivia) 04:06, 11 January 2006 Hellboy1975 m (rv CS reference. Is it really relevant, or just link spam? discuss) I just added it there cause i interpret trivia as a little, "Did you know" column.
 * It just seemed to me as though it really didn't have much to do with Tool as such. I mean if that goes up there then anyone who's name a server, dog, cat or whatever after Tool will be wanting stuff there. hellboy 06:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Imho, it does not belong into the article. The article should be about Tool or things very closely related to Tool. These servers don't have anything to do with Tool besides that their maintainer seems to be a Tool fan therefore I approve of the removal. The Trivia section should stick to trivia surrounding Tool... interpret it as a "Did you know this about Tool?" Otherwise it would definitely get crowded pretty soon..--Johnnyw 11:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The 4th Album
Creating a new article called the 4th album is going a little bit too far isn't it? hellboy 23:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I moved the article The 4th Album to Aldaraia. I just found out at Absolutepunk.net that it would be the title. Mike Garcia 03:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh my GOD. This again??--Cassius987 17:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well it's been officialy announced, so I added it to the discog section..Rehevkor 00:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC) I have a hunch that "10,000 Days" is the April Fools day joke. Just keep your eyes open, becuase April 1st seems to be Tool's favorite holiday, and there is nothing else that even looks like it could be the joke on the website...66.233.97.81 05:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)AM
 * Ok, I guess it's probably not a hoax, just the single's "release date" and the "preview", but you never know with that band68.238.131.138 21:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

let's kick it up another notch (good article)
As you probably have noticed, the article is currently undergoing quite a bit of formal and cosmetic changes. I am trying to get this article to a s.th. like a featured status, with the next step being the acceptance as a good article. In order to do so, I am currently working on the following tasks. I have marked the one I believe am finished with, if you'd like to help, please go ahead. If you want to reverse or drastically edit any of my changes, please be so kind and discuss these changes here. Thank you folks. If you have any suggestions and such, just add your comment to the respective task (don't forget to sign your comments!) --Johnnyw 16:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Tasks:
 * new introductory paragraph
 * Status: done underway done
 * Comments: I added a new introductory paragraph, which was then kindly revised by Cassius. I haven't found the time to read my old paragraph over again to compare, but it looks fine to me now =) --Johnnyw 16:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies about messing up the layout of your comment, but I'm commenting about this part specifically. I think the new introduction sucks. The old one (a.k.a. the second paragraph, I think) provides two pretty external links to back up its claims, flows with the paragraph much better, and seems to be written very much the "neutral" way.
 * "While they have gained much appreciation and praise for a complex and ever-evolving sound, they attract fewer listeners than other popular rock acts,""While" sounds out of place (perhaps not to everybody). Do you have a link to some stats or a survey or something about the "fewer listeners"? How can you be so sure?
 * Yes of course I do. All that is said in the introduction should be more or less a summary of the content that follows. "Fewer listeners" is related to the interview with Keenan about genre and more mainstream bands. Specifically, he says: ""When you hear about all the bands who claim to be influenced by us selling 10 times as many records than we are, no, I don't think we're selling that many records," says Keenan.
 * "arguably because Tool's music is not as accessible."What does that mean? It's "not for the masses" or it's "not in the stores" or are they underground or show their attitude towards the commercialised world or what?
 * Quoting that same article "And although it's been remarked upon many times, the fact that they can sell out venues and top charts across the world remains one of the great mysteries of the modern world. For here is a band that deals in complex musical landscapes, refuses to play any of the industry games, and is as far removed from what's considered musically popular these days as you can get. The fact that they sell any records at all is a huge triumph of substance over style."
 * "Their catalogue encompasses multiple creative cycles of innovation, due in part to long and relatively secretive dormancies from the music landscape between the release of each album and return to concert tours."Do you have any examples? Links?
 * This should be ovious, considering their 4-5 yrs break between Aenima-Lateralus-Whateverthenextalbum.
 * OK, it is indeed just the intro. If there are already links provided somewhere down the article, add them in the summary, no, they won't be redundant. It should say stuff like city, date, members, some albums that most people consider to be "well known" (on the other hand, everyone has an opinion, so if you'd like to avoid silly revert wars, leave that out.), etc. Leave the philosophy for the rest of it, the intro needs to be as concise as possible and loaded with factual info. -- parasti (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There was an earlier version of the introductory paragraph which was written by me, bot net yet revised by Cassius. It read: "Tool differs from many of its contemporaries in various ways. Until today, the band goes through years encompassing creative cycles with the band resurfacing from these long dormancies on the music landscape with releasing another successful album and headlining festivals worldwide. Still, the band shuns publicity and spotlight in the meantime. While they gain much appreciation and praise, they attract less listeners than other popular rock acts, certainly in part because Tool's music is less accessible to most listeners." It would not be a big deal to substantiate what's said with further notes.
 * To sum it all up, I'll try to incorporate the following facts in the introductory paragraph, as you suggested (city, date, members) and rewrite it a bit. Please continue to add any criticism to the talk pages, your input is really appreaciated! --Johnnyw 11:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * new version: I've finished writing a new version of the introduction, that I am actually quite fond of. It relates to the beginning of the band's biography, and incorporates some more references. Imho, it reads nicely too. --Johnnyw 17:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I love it. Keep up the good work, hope you'll make it to FA. -- parasti (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * GREAT new intro Johnny. A definite keeper.--Cassius987 02:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Johnnyw 17:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * new discography layout
 * Status: done
 * Comments: done using wiki syntax. looks good to me, is easier to maintain then old html-tables. --Johnnyw 16:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * references / notes
 * Status: 90% done -> Arguments about genre etc. needs check
 * Comments: added a whole lot of notes.. please check if there are any substantial facts that are not verifiable yet --Johnnyw 16:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * different images, fair use rationales
 * Status: underway
 * Comments: I am currently trying to find some pictures that are more illuminating than just the album covers. Also, we need to check the Fair use rationales of all pictures. Afaik, the use of every single album cover inside the article is a bit excessive use of fair use. --Johnnyw 16:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I am still looking for some concert ticket, or poster from the King Crimson/Tool tour to replace the Lateralus cover. I thought that would do very nicely. Any thoughts on this? Any other suggestions if we are unable to come up with an image? --Johnnyw 17:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. I added concert poster of one of the King Crimson / Tool gigs to the Lateralus-era history. --Johnnyw 11:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (proposal) moving "arguments about" to it's own article, reduce article size
 * Status: discussion on ice
 * Comments: Since the Tool article now already exceeds 40kb, I am proposing to move the Arguments about genre etc. to a new article, where the discussions regarding categorizations of bands are represented, with the controversy surrounding tool being mentioned as one section. then, replace this section with a summary. what do you think, is there enough material to warrant this article? for example, our article states that king crimson themselve "challenge the entire notion of the genre". Any thoughts on this? --Johnnyw 16:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As Johnny knows, the Genre section is sort of my baby, at least to some small extent. That said, if it needs to go, it should go. I think at least a summary would be appropriate to stay here, however, since the section, if we would all recall, was born out of a dire need to stop getting spammed back and forth by people who thought Tool were either a) 100% prog or b) 100% nu metal. It wouldn't be there without a purpose, so if we can trim it but keep its function, good; if we would lose its function, let's not trim it.--Cassius987 17:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. Either create a new article AND write a decent summary or leave as is. Right now, it does not seem as if there are that many ppl anxious to start an article like that.. (see the link below).. --Johnnyw 17:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Due to the 'overwhelming' response to my idea, I decided to give a shit and call it off. Nevertheless, I would be most grateful if any of you could find the time to check the coverage on the discussion for verifiabilty. There are several facts in that section that I was unabel to verify, even after some extensive search for sources. For example: "Even the most commonly cited prog bands, such as Rush, Pink Floyd and Emerson, Lake & Palmer, challenge the entire notion of the genre by pointing out either implicitly or in their own words the vast differences in sound and style between each of the so-called "prog bands"". Please remove anything that could not be verified and rewrite any parts to go with the sources you might find. If you need help with citation styles, just add the link and I will do the formatting. Thank you guys... --Johnnyw 17:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've proposed a new article that could incorporate most of this section at the talk pages of Music genre, see Talk:Music genre--Johnnyw 01:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * readling list (removal?/edit?)
 * Status: underway done (removed, link added to trivia)
 * Comments: After posting this I will have exed the reading list section--I think we all know it was just taking up space and quite unnecessary. If nothing else, it could be mentioned and sourced in the trivia section.--Cassius987 17:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you again, mate! I think the reading list is probably the most "useless" piece of information. While there are some quite good books on that list, it nevertheless does not add THAT much info about the band ITSELF. --Johnnyw 17:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly! And let me just take this opportunity to thank you once again for constantly improving the article, Johnny.--Cassius987 02:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sound samples
 * Status: underway done?
 * Comments: I am currently looking for some nice samples. It's not that easy to butcher some 1min clip out of a Tool song, but I have a list of candidates that I will publish here. I would gladly hear your thoughts, so that we might agree on some to prevent some heavy debates ;) I would focus on the songs that are mentioned in the article, to include samples along with the history section instead of appending a new sound sample section. This way the article would benefit from the samples much more. --Johnnyw 17:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I added "Prison Sex", "Aenema", and "Parabola". Hope you approve. --Johnnyw 11:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

tour dates
tour dates have absolutely nothing to do in an encyclopedia. fans should check them on related websites. please remove them. Unixer 19:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I do not know the guideline proposing this, I removed the dates. I agree, that in retrospective, tours should just be summarized. Maybe it's a bit too much listing them all.. the link will probably do fine. --Johnnyw 19:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with not having tour dates, if they must be included then I'd recommend a separate page. The Tool article is long enough without having hundreds of dates on it.  Perhaps a new article covering Tool tours could be created, including dates, locations, support acts, guests etc. hellboy 01:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ummm, no :-) Unixer 13:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate on "ummm, no"? hellboy 01:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that essentially, fans should just look up dates themselves. All we need to provide is an external linkage. We can summarize and describe tours, but there is no need to list dates.--Cassius987 17:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not? Isn't our goal to be some bastion of comprehensive knowledge? Dimwell 01:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Name Etymology
Isn't "Name Etymology" redundant? I think "Etymology" by itself worked. But that's just me, any thoughts?--Cassius987 20:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought so too. "Name derivation" would be fine, or just etymology. I never knew there could be any etymology but name etymology... Johnnyw 12:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Opiate" only about organized religion?
It's just a small clarification I'd like to discuss with you, still I need your feedback on this. Kane5187 kindly revised a tiny bit of the introduction, which I'd like to discuss here. The sentence in question is as follows, I've highlighted the relevant part: "They are known for addressing philosophical and spiritual issues in their lyrics, such as evolution ('Forty-Six & 2'), organized religion ('Opiate') and transcendence ('Lateralus') [...]"

My question is, does "Opiate" only relate to organized religion, or religion itself? Since the reference Tool makes here is Marx' Opium of the people-quote, I assumed it relates to religion itself, since this is what the quote is about. My version therefore did solely include religion. Tool's main point is obviously not to give your free will in the hands of some saviour; It's possible that Tool used this reference anyways w/o implying more than is obvious, due to only partly knowing this particular writing, but it seems improbable to me. (A very short explanation: Marx wrote about the people clinging to religion to find comfort in and reduce their suffering &mdash; to cling to a fantasy &mdash; because it is not easy to understand and therefore most people do not understand the causes of their suffering. Marx' main argument is not to say that organized religion is used to quiet people down, as many people erroneously think.) Any thoughts? --Johnnyw 18:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * How Maynard interprets it (for Tool) is this: churches instill middlemen between God and the faithful. Songs like Opiate are about those middlemen, not really about God. There are several articles where he says this, but I can't think of any links--someone back me up if you know what I'm talking about.--Cassius987 20:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize that he had in mind that particular interpretation, but I'd say that fits in with the "organized" part of religion -- God is religion, and according to Maynard, it gets mucked up when humans try to put their own structures in there. Dylan 21:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your concern. The reason why I changed it is mainly because Tool and MJK are no strangers to religion: they're very deeply involved occult spiritual philosophies, and although I can easily see them having qualms about referring to their beliefs as "religion," I think it's a more or less accurate title. I completely agree with your interpretation of the song, but my impression has always been that "Opiate" refers to organized religion and definitely not to the kinds of beliefs that MJK holds. In retrospect, I can see that this might step too far over original research / editor's own opinion / unverifiable territory. But my view is that the song treats religion so harshly that labeling its subject as just "religion" makes it seem as though MJK is attacking every single kind of supernatural belief, while he himself holds some. Elements in the song like "someone strong to guide you" and "born to follow" imply that there is a structure to the "opiate" that he's attacking, not an individualistic approach as seen his own practices.


 * Feel free to revert if you'd like -- it's not an edit I feel particularly passionate about -- but I thought that leaving its subject as solely "religion" conflicts with the stated philosophies of the band's members. Perhaps "Christianity" would be better? (the song may imply more, but Jesus is the only identifiable figure that can be tied to a particular faith). Dylan 18:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, I do understand your point of view. But I felt rather assured that my opinion was correct, especially due to this passage from the song
 * "My God's will becomes me. When he speaks out, he speaks through me. He has needs like I do. We both want to rape you."
 * which equates the deity with the prophet. Nevertheless, I see that Dylan's argument about Tool's own rather spiritual approaches to things is in some way religious. If this qualifies as original research to state so, I don't know.... *taking a quick glance at the tool faq* toolshed says: "the band makes fun of the way people let others think for them. That is, it's one thing to have religious beliefs, but it's another thing to let someone else interpret those beliefs and force them on you." Worshipping a religion is actually not that much different from following the orders of a "saviour", since every religious beliefs involves "truths" that you cannot verify. (see Flying Spaghetti Monsterism). Nevertheless, I guess it's a close call, and since this is only about one word, let's keep it. Thx again, wasn't too sure 'bout it, still am not, but either way looks fine to me. =) --Johnnyw 12:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Band image
Thanks to the new (really funny) promo pics, we have a new image for the infobox. There are some more and I would like to change the current one - which is a good one - to 02 of the ones linked above, which I believe is superfantasticgigantanormous. Who is with me?? ^^ --Johnnyw 12:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I am going to change the image on my own account, if someone objects, please revert or discuss here. --Johnnyw 13:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Edit: hm, I can't seem to find an original source of any press kit images on the web. The source provided at the new image does not contain the image, it's merely the link to BMG Sony Music's Tool page, which does not hold any press kits. There ARE some press kits available as far as I can see, but these are password protected for journalists only. Since the new image does not contain a source, I probably have to nominate it for deletion, unless we find a source... =( --Johnnyw 15:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I had to revert to the original image, since the new one will probably deleted, due to the fact, that the uploader does not seem to add a source to the image. We need a real source, like the tool homepage or the sony bmg website to give full credits.. Sadly, I am unable to find one on the net (besides toolshed and such). --Johnnyw 01:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I might have jumped the gun here. Since the old one did not contain source either, I uploaded a different (old) promo image as a temporary solution. --Johnnyw 01:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Laterus
Laterus was No. #16 on the UK albums charts by the way. —This unsigned comment was added by 195.137.109.177 (talk • contribs).
 * Lateralus may have hit #16 in the UK charts - do you have any sources? 66.241.95.65 04:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

10,000 Days
There is more information on 10,000 Days available that seems to be missing from this article. For example, "The new Tool single, 'Vicarious' will officially be heard on radio on April 17th." was posted on the official TOOL website on April 1. There was also a tracklisting for 10,000 days posted on the official band website several weeks ago. Considering the album comes out in a month, it seems like there should be more information about it incorporated into the article. Braincandle 18:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You sadly witnessed an act of vandalism. One entire section of the article dedicated to current events and released was removed by a vandal. I restored the previous version, i believe this will be what you expected of the article ^^ --Johnnyw 19:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. Keep up the good work. Braincandle 06:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The vicarious single hit the internet late night April 14. Don't know if this is appropriate information for the article. But all tool fans should try and find it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.17.36 (talk • contribs).
 * If read about it yeah. It will only be included if we can find reliable source, since we are not allowed to do original research. And I will probably wait to listen to the entire album. I am not a big fan of singles releases.. although I admit that it's hard to restrain myself from looking for Vicarious. --Johnnyw 11:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to restrain yourself--its out there, and boy is it ever good. Braincandle 05:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The album leaked to the internet this afternoon. Braincandle 21:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source? --Johnnyw 00:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Side Projects
Given that each member of the band have quite good individual pages, is it really neccessary to outline all of the side projects in this Tool page? I'm mean they're really related to the individual not the band. Perhaps a brief summary and a link to the members pages could be used? hellboy 00:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

rm exploration of writers, scientists and philosophers
"Tool often promotes the exploration of writers, scientists and philosophers. Fans speculate whether or not this promotion is an effort by the band to endorse these individuals or to promote objective, critical thinking among their listeners. Tool also seems to promote research into certain aspects of magick including the language Enochian. As Tool is fond of red herrings and rarely comment on such matters, it is unknown whether any members of Tool actually subscribe to such beliefs. Among their many offerings are Timothy Leary, Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell, Albert Hoffman, Aleister Crowley, Terrence McKenna and Drunvalo Melchizedek." I removed this addition made by User:69.138.98.12 since it is unsourced and - in part - covered through the reading list link. Does anyone have some sources regarding this? --Johnnyw 02:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't even think there's a need to look for sources. We don't need this. There's no need to spoonfeed people every possible half-idea Tool have ever mentioned. By the way Johnny, plenty of good edits as usual! Keep up the great work.--Cassius987 19:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

POV & unencyclopedic
"is as far removed from what's considered musically popular these days as you can get."

In turn, the "list of bands that have been inspired by [Tool] is long and prestigious."

Entries like the above, even as cited with source, are still too point-of-view to be properly encyclopedic for an article. Wikipedia articles should be informational, and posit concrete data on the subject, not consist of commentary that would represent a favorable abstractly given jot of info to appeal to the sensibilities of a fans opinion. 67.5.158.239 05:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concerns. To substantiate your claim that these citations are not neutral POV, it would have been nice to prove the article wrong and cite a different POV. Of course, you might nevertheless be right. I will try to do a little research and look into both claims asap. --Johnnyw 11:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"is as far removed from what's considered musically popular these days as you can get."


 * Well I have been on the lookout for a different description of Tool's Lateralus-era music, looking through the reviews listed at the Lateralus article, but those that I find that are a little longer than just a one-sentence-summary basically do not contradict the statement above. E.g. Q4Music writes "The quartet's almost avant garde approach is light years removed from even that genre's skewed idea of commercialism", PopMatters writes even more enthusiastically "Tool are the ultimate rock band. They sound cool enough for causal fans while still remaining smart enough for critics." , Rolling Stone "In another era, Lateralus - co-produced by Tool and engineer David Bottrill - would have been considered progressive rock, ten tons of impressive pretension." . So what am I to do? Although there is at least the Q4music quote which backs up the current citation, PopMatters seems to contradict. I will go ahead and replace the current quotation with the last one by the Rolling Stone Magazine, since it goes more into detail about Tool's style during the Lateralus-era, as I originally intended the end of the introductory paragraph to be. Hope you all approve. Regarding the second quote about the influences.. I am not sure if I can find any source contradicting this. If anyone can, please post it here and we will rework the statement. Until then, I will probably not change it.. --Johnnyw 20:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * But why does the intro contain so many quotes and outbound links? Stylistically, the whole section is messy and uneven. (First paragraph reads like something out of a music journal: "proved to be a stroke of luck", etc.) Try writing a totally quote-free version. Worth a try. 195.148.74.159 09:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is basically due to the fact that this would otherwise result in reverting and chaning since the intro would be unverifiable. But I see that the intro isnt easier to read because of the external links. The first step that I will take is to transform the external links into notes. I really would not appreciate if we removed all the verifiable content and replace it with my 2 cents on Tool. BUT, we could do this, if I moved all the content to a new section "Overview" or similar and then write a new intro w/o all the quotes. The overview would then present the facts in detail, including external links and such and the intro would only summarize this overview. But like I said, first of all, I will probably go ahead and change the style to make it more appealing to the eye. Btw: are you the same person who wrote the first comment? If so, did you ever think about creating a WP account? Makes it easier to respond if I know that I am communicating with 1 not 2 people ^^ --Johnnyw 14:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, not the same guy. Just a Tool fan who'd like the article to look a bit better. BTW, I think the work you and a few other people have been doing has pushed the entry in the right direction! I guess the main problem is that Tool is a) contemporary and b) active. There isn't a final word that can summed up and reported. But we can still present a set of basic facts. And maybe basic facts are enough (e.g. I personally find the whole genre argument stuff too detailed - just mention the main influences and the band's stance on their sound and you're set). Your plan re: notes sounds good. 81.197.127.187 16:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your input and heads up ^^ I'd still welcome you to create an account and to revisit the article once in a while, and drop a line of criticism. We are always looking for people who give us some creative feedback. I will make the changes pretty soon, although I am always quite busy. Regarding the genre section: I have thought about the issue as well.. I think the way we handle the genre issue in the intro is quite satisfactory, we had a lot of trouble there some months ago. The new section was another result of those troubles. Maybe we could condense this section a bit, although I would like Cassius987 to do so, since that section is his brain child, and he probably has done more research regarding this subject than me or others... --Johnnyw 17:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed speculation from article
There have been widespread rumors circulating on the internet concerning the validity of the 10,000 Days leak. Fans cite the lack of flow and focus in the album, back to back segues (Lipan Conjuring and Lost Keys) of as well as the seeming similarities between riffs in the new album and previous albums. It should be noted that, Blair, of Tool's online newsletter, wrote the following in September of 2005,


 * "Now where was I?.. Oh yeah, TOOL!.. I'm not going to reveal my source, Mister Patience, but do you want to know the kind of things that have been going on while this record was being recorded? Okay, first there was the decoy record just to confound all those would-be bootleggers out there. This took, oh, about a year, just because the band members wanted it to sound pretty close to the real thing (so as to be believable), along with equally believable art design."

This also follows the pattern of a fan base when reacting negatively to such an influential and popular band as Tool releasing a new album to have the propensity to create false stories and information in hopes that the album they haven't fully adjusted to is some elaborate joke created by the band. I removed the above paragraphs, since they really did not any substantial or interesting information. Some doubt the album's authenticity, some don't. We'll all find out on April 28, when the album will be released in Europe. The above paragraphs will have lost their informational value by that date anyway. --Johnnyw 19:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Similar Artists
I thought this list was pretty pointless. Far too much point of view and nothing even remotely resembling citations, etc. Removed. Feel free to object below. hellboy 06:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * While I'm on that, if we do need a list, then it should be short and concise, and not just include every 90s grunge and nu-metal band who happened to record a CD. Personally I felt the only artist there I'd consider to be similar are The Melvins and King Crimson. hellboy 06:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please let us not endeavour in creating another useless list. People who are interested in similiar artists have the possibility of checking out the artists they have collaborated with, or read some of the album reviews. A list of some sort compiled by us will only result in reverting and endless debates... Btw the article is long enough already.. --Johnnyw 08:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro Para
This seems to be in pretty bad shape. Could it be made more concise? Plus, imho the first thing in the article should be a few sentences describing the band in broad terms, rather than details of how they formed. This should probably be moved to history section.

Also, is it just me, or does the end of this paragraph make no sense at all:

"They have gained appreciation and critical praise for a complex and ever-evolving sound, that ranges from 'slam and bang' heavy metal on their first release[2] to more progressive influenced songwriting on Lateralus (2001) which 'in another era [...] would have been considered progressive rock, ten tons of impressive pretension.'[3]"

Could we just cut that out?

If there are no objections, I'd like to make these alterations. JMalky 15:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate any input. :) But I'd also propose to post these alterations here before changing the article so we could incorporate creative feedback from other regular authors of the article as well. -- Johnny w  talk  11:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

87.160.170.202 17:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC) xarkos, 20/2/07
 * pedantic nitpicking, but tool are NOT prog rock. 'alternative metal' or even 'experimental rock' would be a better choice.

When you use the word "alternative", you make people think of emo bands like My Chemical Romance/Panic at the Disco. You'll see "alternative" plastered all over the Wikipedia pages of these bands. It may not be their true genre, but as long as it's being used uncontested to describe them on Wikipedia, it shouldn't be used to describe Tool. Osmodius 01:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Alternative metal describes Tool. Alternative rock describes those other bands you mentioned. There is a big difference, and any readers who don't notice probably don't care for either genre. Pomte 01:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Live guests
Can anyone confirm that Adrian Belew or any of the other KC members have joined Tool on stage? Also, can anyone think of AND CONFIRM anyone not already listed?


 * Dale from the Melvins definitely has, and I'm pretty sure some one of the guys from KC has at some point. Can't say when though.  I reckon John Stanier from Tomahawk has joined them too. hellboy 05:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Mike Patton from Tomahawk joined the band for one of the very few live performances of Ticks and Leeches in Fort Lauderdale, FL. They were also joined by the drummer from Tricky a few times for Triad. Buzz from the Melvins played with them several times on the Ænima tour.


 * Another one: Zack de la Rocha (sp?) from Rage Against the Machine performed the Rollins spoken bit in "Bottom" at the Lollapalooza '93 second stage show somewhere in the Detroit area. I was there (it was very intensely performed, btw, as you might expect). He may have done it at other shows as well.

Mike Bordin (Faith No More and Ozzy) played some kind of percussion during Triad when I saw them at Ozzfest UK in 2002. I won't add it into the article yet though. I'll let someone more experienced do it ;-) Aenimiac 15:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

A few corrections/clarifications/updates:
 * Dale Crover joined the band on-stage for Triad regularly, including the four southeast US shows The Melvins played w/ Tool in October 2001. Guest drummers were regular for Triad during that tour.
 * Aloke Dutta is featured on Pushit (live) as heard on Salival. This was not during the '98 "mini tour" and is documented (check the Salival liner notes).
 * Thomas Haake (Messhugah) played rototoms during Triad (I was there). Another member of the band played a synth alongside Adam Jones during the same song.
 * Layne Stanley joined Tool in Hawaii (15 Aug 2003), not Hollywood.
 * Statik recorded synth parts for Lateralus and is recognized in the "liner notes".
 * Osseus Labyrint performed during Tool's set in 1999 at Coachella and during the late 2001 US tour.

I'm sure there's more ... I'll add them here as I think of them. I'll leave it to whoever is at the helm to implement the updates. Dimwell 18:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contribution! Please excuse this late response.. one of us frequent editors will probably get to it this week. Do you know by any chance sources regarding these appearences? I am a little concerned regarding verifiability.. As soon as I incorporate your corrections I'll try to find some my own. Sadly I didn't have the time to do so yet, since I dedicated most of my time recently to other sections.. --Johnnyw 01:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sources? Aside from copies of those shows in my CD collection?  Check the Tool trading community (esp. collectiveunconscious.org and distortiononline.com) for source info.  --Dimwell 23:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I assume dropping by your place and looking the guests up in your cd collection would fall under original research ;) but the sites will probably do just fine, thx. To be honest, I've already looked them up myself but refrained from comparing the lists, since I couldn't find a simple list of guest appearences and did not have the time to look through every single concert. I was kinda tangled up in saving the 10,000 days article, swatting dubious images w/o copyright tags like flies.. --Johnnyw 12:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I just remembered another ... Justin Chancellor played on-stage with Tool (during Sober and Bottom) on July 21, 1994. This was more than a year before Paul left Tool and Justin left Peach to join Tool. Dimwell 17:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Kirk Hammett joined Tool for one song on Friday, August 18 in Honolulu (and ripped through a killer Tool-like solo), but I don't know the name of the song he played. Anyone? Mitchell k dwyer 22:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sober. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYFuhpv9U6U

I moved the Guest Appearances to Tool tours. Still needs sourcing. --Hobbes747 00:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Overview and Visual art
Hi folks, I have a proposal to make. I would like to create a new section in the article, an "overview", preceeding the history section. This overview could merge a bit of the content of other sections, maybe shorten the intro just a bit. Here are some specific thoughts on this: I've come up with a very rough proposal.. after reading Subpages, I decided to create subpage to use as a place for drafting and working on the article until it is ready: Talk:Tool (band)/Overview Of course, this would require your support, help and initiative. I am looking forward for a lively discussion on this matter.. what do you think? --Johnnyw 19:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * some of the collaborations with other artists are quite significant and might be interesting to the casual reader who does not want work over the entire article, e.g. the songs recorded with RATM, Carey's tabla work - perfect info summarized in an overview,
 * some of the descriptions on the sound of Tool in the intro are redundant, since we have 4-5, maybe we could move the beginning of the 2nd paragraph (part of the sound description and the hint to the arguments about their genre) to the overview and rewrite it a bit to elaborate a tiny bit more on Tool's visual art, which would lead me to my second suggestion:
 * the overview could finally sport a summary about Tool's visual art, which is quite a subject. In order to prevent the article from growing ever larger, it would sport a link to an article dedicated to the subject. We have been putting this off for some time now, sadly.

Could this page be improved with a section about their mysterious puzzles and/or cryptic lyric interpretations?

Or possibly another page entirely devote to this?

Or perhaps this is best left to "outside of wikipedia"

I'm just brainstorming here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diogenes Blinks (talk • contribs).


 * I presume you're talking about the 10,000 Day's puzzle reference. If that's the case, considering it's so vague, I don't see any reason why it should be included in Wikipedia hellboy 03:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Diogenes Blinks 15:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

DOES ANYONE KNOW OF A SITE AND/OR CHATROOM WHERE THEY DISCUSS THE MEANING OF TOOL LYRICS, THERE MUST BE ONE (OR MORE)--REBELYIS 22:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone add information pertaining to first-week sales of each of the major tool albums, including but not limited to Undertow, Aenema, Lateralus, and 10,000 Days. Lr Alpha M 22:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If/when this data is added, it should appear on the Album page, not the Tool page. hellboy 23:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Salival Rerelease?
Recently I was browsing the hmv UK website (http://www.hmv.co.uk/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?ctx=280;-1;-1;-1&sku=508767) and found Salival for £8.99. I ordered it on Monday 15th May, since then the price has gone up. I'm confused by it being on especially as it's release date is 15th June 2006. I waiting for the delivery, it should come tomorrow. I've got the email reciept and the money has gone from my account but still i'm thinking that it isn't an original or thery're going to send me some other CD. Does anyone know if it is still avaliable or if it has been rereleased? advo 09:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, it's a limited release w/o any chance of rerelease. The item you linked above also states "Availability: sorry this title is deleted".. it's probably a mistake. Also, IF you receive anything other then a copy, it will probably just the CD, not the VHS or DVD version which included all the music videos up to that date. Nevertheless, it's a good buy, I enjoyed Salival very much =) --Johnnyw 14:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Popular songs
Is "Die Eier Von Satan" actually a popular Tool song? Methinks "Parabola" would be a better choice for the list, especially since "Eier" isn't really a "song." King Bee 14:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You are certainly right. Problem is, that there is no article for "Parabola (song)". It'd be welcome if you created the article, and maybe merged Parabola (DVD) into the new article, just like it has been done with Schism (song) and Schism (DVD)... --Johnnyw 00:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Good call. I think I'll do that, as soon as I have a couple of hours free. Thanks for the suggestion. I would like to know, however, how to change the "popular song" thing at the bottom of the page. I'm not exactly sure what's going on there. King Bee 12:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's an easy one: Template:Toolband is a template that can be included in Tool-related articles and centrally modified. See Template namespace for further information. This means, that after creating the article, you just have to edit the Toolband-template like you'd edit an article and replace "Die Eier von Satan" with "Parabola" (using normal wiki-syntax for links etc.) - this change will appear everywhere where the toolband-template is included. --Johnnyw 14:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sweet! Thanks for the info and the help. King Bee 12:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. =) --Johnnyw 15:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Organization of Subjects
It's a rather small thing, but shouldn't "Current" be below "History"? It just seems a bit more logical to me...-- Sanctus
 * If you had a chronological order in mind, you are certainly right, but imho the article benefits a lot from the current structure. It is safe to assume that the majority of readers are interested in a general overview and then the current status of the band. To delve into the entire band history is obiously sth that 1st timers might not do, in contrast to readers familier with the band. This structural change - removing the very latest info from the history section and fusing it into it's own - resolved some revert-issues and caused the history section to be a lot more stable than it used to be - just liked it should be. This may be in part due to the clear distinction between more transient information and well researched facts.--Johnnyw 15:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I figured there must of been a reason it was first.  Glad I asked before I just went off and changed it!-- Sanctus

Singular Plural
Think of it this way: in this context, "Tool" is a pronoun that takes the place of "Maynard James Keenan, Danny Carey, Justin Chancellor, and Adam Jones". Now, you would never, ever say "Maynard James Keenan, Danny Carey, Justin Chancellor, and Adam Jones is a progressive rock band," would you? Also, referring to American_and_British_English_differences shows that "are" is correct in both British and American English - surely it is preferable to be consistent to a greater number of readers? Furthermore, it is consistent with later using phrases such as "Their overall sound" and "Their music".  Tu rk ey ph an t 13:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You can also think of it as Tool being a single entity, not as a pronoun that takes the place of the four men in the band. I think it is more common to consider bands as solitary entities. Although, wikipedia seems split on the idea (Metallica's page has the singular verb, Pearl Jam's page has the plural). King Bee 14:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes but that does not agree with the next part of the article that says things like "Their overall sound", etc. In my view, you have to be consistent throughout an article and nobody would say "Its (Tool's) overall sound".  Also, plural forms shoul always be used when the group is considered as a collection of people doing personal things such as a band.   Tu rk ey ph an t 14:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there is a change in context, and that's why we switch from singular to plural. First, we speak of the band, the single entity. Shortly thereafter, we introduce the band members. After that moment, we always use the plural. See here:
 * Tool is an American rock band, formed in 1990 in Los Angeles, California, when drummer Danny Carey joined the rehearsal of his neighbor, singer Maynard James Keenan, and guitarist Adam Jones and bassist Paul d'Amour, when nobody else would show up. His decision proved to be a stroke of luck when the band turned out to become a highly successful rock act, "introducing dark, vaguely underground metal to the preening pretentiousness of art rock"[1] — most notably due to their influential sophomore effort, Ænima (1996). [...] -- Johnny w  talk  00:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's poor writing and poor form. The plural form is correct in both British English and American English while the singular is deemed incorrect by many readers.  Tu rk ey ph an t 03:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a kind of writing style up with which we shall not put! =) King Bee 13:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not a native English speaker, and since I acquired most of my knowledge of the English language in the United States, I might have made mistake when I was writing the text. After reading the link provided above, it looks as if you are right. Surely, I will not insist on using the singular. -- Johnny w  talk  21:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the plural form is chiefly a British way of speaking and writing. In American English it is generally accepted to use the singular form for nouns, especially when the noun isn't pluralized as is the case for "Tool". One wouldn't customarily say or write "The Company are going bankrupted", would they? Likewise, one would generally never write "The band are currently on tour". The reason for the inconsistency in the rest of the article is again a matter of American vernacular. If it is obvious that "Tool" (or any other noun) implies singularity then one doesn't use the word "it". Wisdom89 22:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The thing is both ways are acceptable in American English (although the singular is arguably more popular). However, only the plural is correct in British English.  Therefore, my argument is that the plural should be used to make it easier to comprehend by all readers.  Tu rk ey ph an t 14:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The singular form is much more natural sounding in American English (and this is, after all, an American band). I agree with the reasoning that "Tool" refers to a singular collective.  "Tool" describes one band.  Take sports teams, for example.  Consider that old elementary school test for singular or plural nouns.  "How many Tools are there?  There is one Tool.  Thus, Tool 'is'..." Consider further the sentence "Tool are my favorite band."  When using the British English verb you create a number disagreement between "are" and "band." Ignitus 11:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Which one is more "natural sounding" is entirely subjective and has no place in a reasoned discussion. Similarly, by studying my previous arguments you will find that the "number disagreement" is inconsequential.  Tu rk ey ph an t 13:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The word "Tool" still describes only ONE band. Thus, the singular verb is used.  You'll notice the Pearl Jam page was changed to the singular form.  Wikipedia's own English plural page states that both forms are acceptable in British English, not only one form as you stated.  Seeing as usage is correct in both British and American English, and as it's up to one's discretion, and as Wikipedia works on consensus, we should stay with the singular form.  Nearly every other band page (for bands whose names are not already plural, such as The Rolling Stones) says "is" rather than "are" which establishes our consensus. Ignitus 06:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you continued to read the Wikipedia page you referenced, you'd find that the "delicate distinction" suggests the plural ought to be used for entities such as bands where acts are performed by the multiple members of a band. This is correct in British and American English.  Tu rk ey ph an t 23:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it refers to the band (IS) not to the members (ARE). So any band, no matter if their name is in plural it should be called "is". eg: Tool is a prog metal band...; The Rolling Stones is a rock band. As we are always refering to "the band".

Dexter_prog 24 November 2006

etymology: removed paragraph
I removed this paragraph, since it is quite speculative. -- Johnny w  talk  19:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"The simple name 'Tool' may also reflect the band's desire to express a lyrical message that, like a mechanical tool, is free of coercive qualities in itself, but, depending on the individual who makes use of it, can take on a variety of purposes and meanings. Tool's lyrics are often very general so as to allow for such multiple interpretations, and therefore the band members cannot always be easily pinpointed as adherents to specific political or religious agendas based on their lyrics. In an interview, Maynard has made claims that support this notion. 'Information, itself, is pure. Take a knife, for example. You can use it to cut up vegetables, meat, butter your bread, etc. Or you can use it as a weapon. The way in which information exists in its many forms leaves for us the decision as to how it is we wish to use it. Information itself has a certain purity. Humans have intentionality. It's humans who decide how it is they wish to behave. Information and technology are pure'. [5]"

Tool in Blender
In the new Blender I noticed that Tool is "stressed over their Wikipedia article"... which is actually sad and pathetic to say the least for us pedians. The blip says as follows:

"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.'"

This isn't really my article, and I don't know how anybody wants to put it, so I'll leave it up to the everybody else. willsy 19:19 July 12th 2006.


 * Well to put it bluntly, if Adam, Danny, Justin or Maynard have a problem with the article then, like all of us, they could feel free to make the changes! hellboy 00:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And to be honest, I don't know where they got that info from?! The article reads "It was Tom Morello, a high school friend of Jones, who introduced Carey to the band in 1990 and eventually helped the formation of Tool." .. Which is basically exactly what Jones said... Probably a mistake done by Blender then, sharp to find "another" error in WP? Just my 2 cents.. May I ask the exact source of that statement? Maybe there is a chance to clarify this. -- Johnny w  talk  00:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont think that any of the guys would have time or the need to do anything to change this, because this like the U.S. Constitution, is by the people for the people. Remember Maynard only gets pissed off at Bob marley Wannabes.76.187.136.157 01:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Zsazter

The August 2006 issue with Owen Wilson on the front, page 79 and number 4. This could've been written a while back, because I do remember the article saying what they're talking about. Also... I think it's an unwritten law (maybe it is written... don't know) that people can't fix their own articles *shrugs*. willsy 19:59 July 12th 2006.
 * I scoured a little bit through the article history up to October of last year - if it ever said s.th., it must have been a loooong time ago. So what the hell. -- Johnny w  talk  09:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thought I'd say something about it, sorry for the stress since it's changed. willsy 14:38 July 13th 2006.
 * No need to apologize. Thanks for pointing it out, man. Too bad the magazine didn't even bother to do research.-- Johnny w  talk  00:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, :-D, yeah, Blender really is a crappy magazine... glad I get it for free. willsy 13:54 July 15th 2006.

how do you get blender for free?--REBELYIS 22:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fill out a card at FYE... but don't do it... it's really not even worth it. -will 20, July 2006

I love Blender. Anyway whatever then. -Totally different person, July 28 2006

Bulgarian Folk Metal?
Are you kidding? I know nothing of Bulgarian folk metal, and I live in Bulgaria. The closest thing to it is pop-folk, which is crap, and it isn't originally Bulgarian anyway. So, what is this Bulgarian thing?

--84.43.145.225 10:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Maynard is being purely facetious in that quote. You can see he mentions Christian rap also, which Tool certainly is not.

Ignitus 11:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of MySpace link
Hi, I would like to revert Yamla's edit, which was removing the link Adam Jones' Myspace page. Dear Yamla, you cited WP:EL as your reason to remove it, but after reading the relevant passage which advises to generally avoid personal websites such as MySpace, it also goes on to say "However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard.". Jones' Myspace featured a lot of artwork closely related to 10,000 Days as well as photographs of the band in the studio recording the album. Images and information about such things cannot be found either on the official Tool website, nor on WP. So, why shouldn't we make an exception and include the link? -- Johnny w  talk  22:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should consider, though, that Jones himself would not appreciate a public listing of his semi-reclusive myspace account? After all, it takes some finding if you're just looking on your own. Not a dealbreaker--just adding this as a quick thought. By the way, hello again to everyone, and I apologize for my lengthy absences.--Cassius987 18:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To be honest, if Jones wanted secrecy, he certainly wouldn't have published his stuff on myspace... Also, his myspace page is the 4th link in google when searching for "Adam Jones" (WP being #1 =). On a different note, I just wanted to point out that the WP:EL (see above) is under revision (Wikipedia talk:External links) - especially due to the fact that many links to official myspace pages have been removed lately.. And last but not least I welcome you back Cassius =) -- Johnny w   talk  08:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On Toolshed.Down.Net, Adam's myspace page was put in the newsletter. It is not, in any sense, a secret.
 * As an editor I would delete any link to personal homepages or myspace on sight. It's a very thin line we're threading. If one site makes the cut, then why another didn't? If it's avoidable I would never list myspace sites, not only because a Myspace site can never be professional simply due to Myspace limitations. There's an implicity rule that only one fan site should be listed, and also only if it's notorious enough (thousands to millions of users perhaps). By the way, if the article has a so good google rank then listing it on wikipedia will be of no use, because people searching for tool on google will certainly stumble on the site without any aid from wikipedia. For the sake of maintaining a litle discipline in External links section I would avoid at all costs linking to myspace or personal sites, not the contrary, trying to squeeze the guidelines to enforce that a link to such a site stays in the article. On the other hand, you can substantiate the citing of such a site using unique information found inside it on the article itself (if it's reliable enough). See Boxer (dog) and you'll see a few personal sites being cited in the references section because they contributed with information to the article. Regards Loudenvier 13:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)