Talk:Tool (band)/Archive 4


 * This archive contains all discussions which took place during the drive for promotion to featured article, beginning with the requested peer review and ending with the last discussion before promotion.

Peer review
Hello folks.. since I have submitted the article to a peer review (see template at the top of this talk page), I will make some changes to the article to incorporate the suggestions. Please follow the discussion at the link above, since I will not document everything twice, once here AND at the peer review page, but solely there. Please help, if you can. Greetings, Johnny  w   talk  12:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't include the other April Fools because those had an impact only on the fan community. Brief mention of the 1999 jail hoax at t.d.n. I'll start working on the peer review suggestions. Do you mind if anyone who has done a task cross them off from that list so others can focus on the other items? –Pomte 12:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess that's good idea! I will try to find some more critical commentary regarding the band's music videos.. -- Johnny w   talk  11:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

rewrote the lead, genre and influence. changed genre to "rock"
Due to the suggestions at the peer review, and having reviewed many sources about the genre, I changed the genre in the first sentence back to "rock". There was a bit of a contradiction there earlier, with calling them clearly a progressive rock band, but citing heavy metal in the beginning and s.th. which "in another era" would have been progressive rock.. I think the genre and influences section handles this debate now a lot more in detail, since all the names, and more detailed descriptions are in one place now. Hope you like it.. And please: review, change and/or comment! =) -- Johnny w   talk  16:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The lead doesn't mention Justin at all. Although he's in the infobox, we can't expect readers to tell. Suggest listing all 5 guys in the second sentence, designating Justin as current and Paul as former. The first "slam and bang" quote is by Adam. Sources should be independent, or we'd be forced to mention that a band member himself made that description in order to be NPOV. –Pomte 18:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we just have to find a good sentence, there shouldn't be any tongue twisters in the lead. To explain this: I looked up featured articles mentioned at the peer review, which often only mentioned the founding members of the band in the lead. About the quote... well it fits the context, about what the band expected to need to do and what they subsequently released, so imho, we would need to replace it with sth that fits just as well. Maybe it would suffice if we added source just for plain "heavy metal" and leave the slam bang as it is? -- Johnny w   talk  18:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As a quick fix, I replaced Paul with Justin, which is more appropriate. -- Johnny w   talk  18:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Formation
The Rough Guide to Rock must be really rough, because it says Tool formed in 1991 based on Ronald Vincent's A Joyful Guide to Lachrymology. I trust t.d.n's 1990, but will continue to look for reliable sources. The New Metal Masters says Danny joined before Paul, which is opposite to the article. –Pomte 19:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the rough guide to rock doesn't seem that trustworthy. I have read the 1991 elsewhere as well, but 1990 at t.d.n. or AMG... about Paul and Danny, yes I believe that must be a mistake.. didn't write it like that as far as I remember? Well, it should at least say the Maynard and Adam started and the others joined, which is definitely correct.-- Johnny w   talk  19:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I corrected the bit about who joined in what order.. although it's quite hard to figure out, when exactly what happened. The live songs on Opiate are from New Year's Eve 1991 say some sources.. they had a record deal 3 months after formation says another.. which would suggest a formation of the band, including all band members, in 1991.. Probably, Keenan and Jones formed Tool before that.. but to say when exactly Carey and d'Amour joined is quite tough. -- Johnny w   talk  12:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

an interview that might be handy for unsourced material
a month or so ago someone added this interview http://www.cdicarlo.com/paper_04maynard.htm to one of the tool pages. it actually is a good interview done by a Philosophy professor. i never saw it sourced for anything here (or saw it at all actually). upon re-reading it it struck me that some of this material may be useful for the various album and song pages. it may be useful for material here too although it may be too specific for inclusion. El hombre de haha 21:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely. That's probably the best source (and best interview) to upgrade all the original research we have. It's useful at Maynard James Keenan and here too for the style/mentality of the band and their take on interpretations. –Pomte 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Rock
Tool is listed as Alternative Rock on the List of alternative rock artists page. My attempts to remove them have been reverted on both occasions by the same editor. Anyone else have a problem with this? Osmodius 23:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with it, though it's probably more appropriate if Tool is kept off that list. Somebody could probably dig up some sources that label Tool as alt rock, but that's just trying to make a point. –Pomte 10:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

intro rewrite
original text:


 * Though the band's sound has been subjected to many favorable comparisons, this merely reflects a difficulty in placing the band in the current music industry (see: Genre and influences) &mdash; which contributes to an ambivalent relationship between the band and music business, along with exceptionally long or complex releases, or controversial yet abstract lyrics, unorthodox music videos, the subsequent disputes and censorship, and the resulting ongoing struggle for privacy.


 * Nevertheless, all this has made the band a highly successful act in every sense, receiving popular support by filling big venues, or topping album charts in several countries, as well as critical acclaim such as receiving several Grammy Awards. This success enables the band members to indulge in year long creative cycles between each release or collaborate with other artists, e.g. for sumptuous live shows, award-winning album packaging, or even highly notable side projects.

my rewrite:


 * The band's sound is subjected to many favorable comparisons, therefore it is difficult to place the band’s genre (see: Genre and influences). This results in an ambivalent relationship between the band and the music industry. Other aggravating factors are exceptionally long or complex releases controversial yet abstract lyrics, unorthodox music videos that often result in censorship, and the band’s ongoing struggle for privacy.


 * Nevertheless, all this has made the band a highly successful act that receives critical acclaim, support that fills big venues, and albums that top the charts in several countries. This success enables the band members to indulge in year long creative cycles between releases, which allows for collaboration with other artists, design of award-winning album packaging, and highly notable side projects.

just putting it here out of courtesy, i found the original a little hard to read. i wanted to keep the information but clean it up a little. El hombre de haha 03:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Same note
Do you guys ever notice that most of Tool's songs use the same basic note? JustN5:12 02:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a quote about that that we can add to the new "Musical genre, style, and traits" section: "Nearly all Tool songs are played in Drop D tuning." –Pomte 22:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Tool, Progressive ROCK, are you SERIOUS??
As we know, most of all Tool's music is quite repetitive and boring in terms of progressive rock (which they're not), that's why I think they shouldn't by categorized by that, they will fit better in alternative rock/metal genre, and by the way, when trying to tag them as "progressive rock" it's the same as trying to compare them with prog rock greats like for instance GENESIS, YES, GENTLE GIANT, and wow, that's pretty IMPOSSIBLE in any case, and the guy who tags them as progressive rock in first place over and over again (obviously a diehard fan of Tool) doesn't have A reason nor solid knowledge base to do that, it's very easy to note that. –Progrocker7 20:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey pal, the article isn't the place for your opinions. If you want to rant on the talk page, fine, leave the article alone.  If you want my opinion, I think prog sucks and it's a shame to stoop Tool down to that level.  In any case, since you seem to be stuck in the 70s(from the bands you cited above), the definition of prog rock has since changed over the decades, whether you like it or not.  Therefore we're not sure of your "credentials" as far as your authority over prog rock.  Why not stick to your 70s bands and leave the 90s alone? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidan829 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Relax people. I am currently working on it. I have already looked through all our footnotes and summed it up. Next, I have to rewrite the genre & influences section and change the genre accordingly... Am halfway through, this week it will be done. And just for the curios: the most common descriptions are "art rock" (/metal) and "progressive rock" (/metal). the alt. metal description has been dropped pretty much since the late 90s. they were even called grunge at a time.. so you shouldnt take it all too seriously. -- Johnny w   talk  10:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you will agree with me when I say that you can't really clump Tool into a particular genre anyway. They vary so much album to album.  It's unfortunate that it's expected of us to pick what they are. Wikidan829 16:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * for the purposes of this article we really can't classify them based on our own opinions, and must instead use sources that classify them one way or the other, no matter how little we agree with them. El hombre de haha 00:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly Wikidan829 21:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Working on it.. won't be done before the weekend though. -- Johnny w   talk  22:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

copyvio?
this appears to reproduce the content from this article

here is the site's copyright info http://www.abc.net.au/common/copyrigh.htm

ABC Materials, including pages and on-line images, are protected by the Copyright Laws of Australia. All rights are reserved. When you access the ABC you agree that:   * You may retrieve the ABC's materials for information only. * You may save a local copy or send it to your printer for your own personal use or in order to inform authorised and potential users about the ABC materials. However, you may not make any charge for such use and any commercial exploitation is expressly prohibited. * You must include the copyright notice in any copy that you make. * You may not modify the information found in ABC materials without the express permission of the ABC.

"Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement). Wikipedia articles therefore will remain free forever and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which serve to ensure that freedom." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights

example from link: "In January 2001, the rumor mill surrounding the band gained new life when TOOL announced their new album, Systema Encéphale. Only one month later, they revealed that it was actually titled 'Lateralus' and that Systema had been a ruse, much to the dismay of music magazines and commercial websites who had committed headlong to the fake title."

"'Lateralus' featured songs averaging six-and-a-half minutes in length, unwieldy even for most ambitious disc jockeys. The length of the music video for 'Parabola' clocked in at an unheard of ten-and-a-half minutes, almost condemning it from being aired on mainstream music channels. Nevertheless, the album became a commercial success the world over. Lateralus debuted at #1 both here in Australia and the U.S.."

from article: "Only one month later, they revealed that the new album was actually titled Lateralus and that the name Systema Encéphale and the tracklist had been a ruse,[25] much to the dismay of music magazines and commercial websites who had committed headlong to the fake title. Lateralus features songs averaging six-and-a-half minutes in length, unwieldy even for the most ambitious of disc jockeys. The music video for 'Parabola' clocked in at ten-and-a-half minutes, almost condemning it from being aired on mainstream music channels."

the similar wording exists here back to january 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tool_%28band%29&oldid=37022254

is this cool/common/no big deal? sorry if it's a silly question. El hombre de haha 06:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Our buddy Johnnyw made this edit back on June 23, 2005. Considering the rage article says 6th May 2006, it appears they copied from here. –Pomte 07:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a Wikiproject that deals with these issues: Mirrors_and_forks .. go check it out. But, to be honest, there is not that much we can do about it. Still, I guess these mirrors will always be lagging behind and people will hopefully know that it's just a bad copy from Wikipedia.. Johnny  w   talk  07:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Attack of the South Americans
People need to leave this page alone. It was clearly stated above that references are to be provided to substantiate genre classification. It seems a certain user has started to edit(or have people he/she knows edit) without a user name. They are all traced to South America. I would stop short of calling them vandals, but they are clearly here to get their own way, and not contribute in the best interest of the article. What can we do? Wikidan829 15:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you racist now?, what's wrong with the South Americans?

"I would stop short of calling them vandals, but they are clearly here to get their own way"

— And what are you guys doing with calling Tool as a progressive rock band?, this article has to be more focused in neutral oppinions, indeed, only a Tool fan will think they are prog rock, that's why the article viewer should be warned about those facts in the top of this, and I hope the viewer have a good base and discretion to avoid be blindly-guied and to not trust everything in this article, it's a matter of culture now, you decide, thanks. –Progrocker7 02:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Before pointing your fingers at other editors you should look at your own behavior "progrocker". What you are doing is right now to create a straw puppet, calling him a racist, to distract from any debate content-wise. Have you read my talk-item down below about the genre issue? Have you read Neutral point of view and Verifiability? ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth") Ok, then Don't be a dick let's start to work on s.th. important from now on and forget this nonsense! Johnny  w   talk  07:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh and one more thing: looking at your contributions lets you take a good look how you have spent your time so far on Wikipedia. Who are you, like the Jesus of Musical genres or what? Don't you have anything more constructive to do then imprinting genre labels on band-articles without ever citing one single source? Everyone else has to invest time to write according to the rules here, why can you just spread your personal opinion all over the place? -- Johnny w   talk  07:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Racist? Hardly, you're the one who brought it up. I just noticed that not only you but several other IPs who have recently edited were from Uruguay or Chile, if you must know.  Sounds fishy that all of a sudden we're being attacked over something stupid from a certain geographical area.  If you want to look at it any deeper than that and call me a racist, so be it, that's your problem not mine.
 * Having said that, like Johnnyw has said before, we honestly don't give a shit what genre Tool is labeled. We don't care, I don't even believe in genres, they are a marketing tool used by the record companies.  What we do care about is being accurate to our sources.  They "have been called" progressive rock, so we must specify that.  Go call the president of MTV and blame him, it's not our choice.  We're here for Wikipedia, not Tool.  You should be here for Wikipedia, not Progressive Rock.  If you are here for Progressive Rock, and not Wikipedia, kindly leave.  We have enough problem with vandalism as it is.  This is a place for summarizing information from verifiable sources, not opinions. Wikidan829 17:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

—Ok Tool fan-boys, how ignorant could you be to cite MTV as a reliable source in matters of prog rock??, and most important, (I've been doing modifications in wikipedia from time ago, and I think I had one more account before this one but I forgot the user name because it was quite hard to remember...), I've modified stuff which clearly seemed to be fans creation in some cases; and do I need to cite for example that CAMEL is an important band from the Canterbury Scene?, come on!. Wikipedia sucks because of you guys, seriously, I will quit with this article because it is an endless "war" with you guys in the other side of the field, but I'll will continue doing what I think is the best for this encyclopedia, peace.

...And this could be applied to prog in this case:

IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, DON'T MESS WITH IT - Fats Waller

–Progrocker7 19:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no war here. I'm going to say this one more time, and it will be the last time, since you can't seem to get it through your head and I'm sick of repeating it, I DONT CARE WHAT GENRE TOOL IS LISTED UNDER. We're being true to our sources and NOTHING more. It has nothing to do with being "fans". You need to cite everything. MTV was not the only source. Instead of calling people ignorant, why don't you ask Johnnyw where he saw Tool listed as "Progressive Rock" and see for yourself. I only stated MTV as an example of a source. Wikidan829 20:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The recent vandalism by 190.84.3.225 was another South American IP address. Coincidence? maybe.. What can we do to stop vandalism on this page? The IPs keep changing and it's a slow trickle. Wikidan829 23:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Revert. If one IP or account vandalizes repeatedly after receiving warnings, they will be blocked, but they can always come back. If vandalism persists on this article, we can get it semi-protected. Other than that, deny recognition. –Pomte 23:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

the genre issue
Ok, folks, we have had this discussion several times before over the course of years. Whatever your opinion about this issue is, the only relevant factors are the principles of Wikipedia. In this case, we're we are trying to enhance an encyclopedia entry about a band, normally you would classify the band. Tool is hard to classify, and maybe, some would argue, classification can kiss my ass. All this is irrelevant, because our mission is to show any ongoing debates and reflect reality as it is written (or displayed or broadcast, whatever) in public sources. Therefore, we read through relevant sources and gather what we find. I am right now working on a rewrite of the genres-sections, which will try to focus on other things then genres and at the same time, deal with the genres. I have gone through all the sources that are currently cited in the article and looked for classifications have found these:
 * 3 times "art metal"
 * 3 times "progressive rock"
 * 2 times "art rock"
 * 2 times "progressive metal"
 * 2 times "alternative metal"
 * 1 time "alternative rock"
 * 1 time "grunge"

Alternative rock/metal/grunge can mostly be found in older articles reflecting the popularity of these genre during the 90s. Both art-/progressive metal seem to be used to put an emphasis on Tool's heavy sound. But I repeat, we should not care that much about the genres, this leads nowhere. The energy invested in this shit could have been used to comment on the changes I and some others have made over the last weeks, which was a lot of work by the way! Well, enough ranting, best luck to all of us.. Johnny w   talk  16:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to look into this Johnny. Wikidan829 17:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome, this issue has to be settled once and for all. I have been working for years now on this baby and I want it to grow up. The genre issue was tackled during the first major rewrite over a year ago, by Cassius, a fine contributor. At the same time I started to work on the bio, the lead, pictures and above all, on the sources. Of course, he didnt have the same sources available then, that we have collected until today, so there are inaccuracies. I am almost done rewriting the genre/musical traits/influences section. The musical traits part still need some good work though, but I will finish that in the next couple of days. If you want to, you can take a look at it beforehand at my workspace User_talk:Johnnyw/Tool_lead and comment here if you have any thoughts. That is an invitation for anyone reading this. But please don't mess around or I get confused ;) Johnny  w   talk  18:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think it's now ready to be viewed by the public. I tried very hard to get away from the genre stuff by adding a section about the music traits and have rewritten almost all the genre stuff as well to get away from the prog-only connotations the old section had.. Also, I changed the infobox accordingly. As always: please comment and correct where applicable. Any additions are, of course, always welcome (as long as they are properly referenced). For example: I have already read articles about earlier "prog" allusions when Aenima came out, because Dave Bottril joined to produce the album but haven't been able to incorporate the info yet. So, if you'd like to take a spin, go ahead. If you need help finding sources, try t.d.n. (articles section).. best wishes, Johnny  w   talk  22:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work in making sure this is perfectly clear. I can only hope that - if someone needs to make further changes - that they put in at least the amount of effort that you have. Wikidan829 00:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

While editing post-metal, I found 3 sources that label Tool as such: I've refrained from adding it to the infobox because Tool aren't really associated with the known post-metal sound. But a similar situation exists for stuff like progressive metal. If possible, I think each of the genres in the infobox should have at least one citation, just so people are less inclined to change them. –Pomte 22:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Third Eye Open and other tributes
I'm thinking about doing a solo project with my tin whistle, can I add it? (joke) Can anybody provide references/notability for any of these? Wikidan829 05:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I also suggested getting rid of them or moving them to Tool discography. –Pomte 05:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As a first step I wanted to include them in subsection of "Musical tratis, genre and influences" called "Influences on other bands" and shorten the list substantially. Don't know if it's misleading to place them in the discography, but I don't really mind that much. -- Johnny w   talk  07:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be for putting it in the discography near the bottom, specifically labeled Tribute albums. I think having one of the bands in the title(i.e. Third Eye Open) is a little POV unless someone can prove notability and importance over the rest in there.  Unless someone beats me to it, I'll try to move it today.  Wikidan829 11:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the Discography be at the very end of the article? Many of the well-written band pages have it this way.  Also, Johnny mentions below that the lead  of the article still needs work-I agree.  I wish there was a way to incorporate some of that info to the body and tighten the lead.  That's just my preference though, I am not sure if that is what is needed.  hombre de haha 21:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Further development of the article
Hi folks, two things: 1) I have added a new template to the article's talk page, listing me as a author to contact for help, if needed, to verify facts or find sources. This is meant as an attempt to encourage all new contributors to be bold and add information. I will help to find adequate sources or insert the correct references, e.g., if there are problems with the template. Since I have read the article dozens of times until today, including all the current sources and worked on every part of the article over the years some way or the other, I hope I can help others contribute more and better. Last summer, I was absent to Wikipedia for several months, due to many different personal factors. If this happens again (e.g. I don't respond to any help requests), please remove me from that list! 2) Before I submit the article to GA candidate, I will wait a bit to see what the responses are to the work since the peer review. I know that the lead still needs a bit of work, at least in my opinion. So if anyone feels like it and knows how to write good prose, go ahead. Best wishes, Johnny  w   talk  21:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the article for missing citations and original research. As of this revision, May 08, 2007 there are fourteen citations missing, six possible counts of original research and two sections entirely unreferenced. This is probably not exhaustive, but certainly a place to start adding citations. Regards, Skomorokh 22:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Help
I'm an idiot when it comes to certain tags(like references). References 40 and 48 are supposed to be the same one, can someone tell me how to make them both 40, or do it? haha thanks Wikidan829 22:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. It's quite simple: given two refs …and…, simply name the first one i.e. and for the second one just write (note the extra '/' in the second reference).  Skomorokh  incite 23:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Tool references
I realize that not every editor is Tool savvy, either they don't know much, or have never heard of them. This should not stop them from adding, editing, or verifying, of course, but I can understand why it would be hard for them to source things, "tool", being such a generic word, isn't Google friendly. I encourage everyone who doesn't already know about it to visit:

This site has more information about Tool than Tool's own website. It has tour dates, interviews, etc. Happy editing. Wikidan829 23:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict'd twice, this page has been really busy recently) http://toolshed.down.net/articles/ for a more specific link. Some people may have issues with articles archived/transcribed at a site dedicated to the band though. –Pomte 23:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, when making an external link, don't bother to use &lt;ref&gt; or cite web - just do it like this with &#91; and &#93;. See Help:Link for more info. –Pomte 23:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I intended it to be more of a reference to band's intentions. Things like.. who they say they are influenced by.. if Lateralus(song) was really related to the Fibonacci sequence(as a recent argument arose) or if it was just a coincidence, etc.
 * Thanks for the link tip! I've spent most of my time so far reverting vandalism and fixing typos, so I'm just getting into the reference stuff. Wikidan829 23:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There has been some nice work done, good jobs folks =) I have gone over the article and think some of the tags are unnecessary, and have already in mind where to find some of the references that are still needed, but will go into more detail in a couple of days.. There's an exam up tomorrow, and the weekend calls for some hours spent at the beach! So... see ya soon! Johnny  w   talk  18:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

drug use
does tool do drugs? if they do, maybe that should also be added to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.114.9.1 (talk • contribs).
 * Well I have read that some of the band members have experimented with psychedelics, but it would be kinda silly to add this to a band-biography, since a band as such can hardly be on drugs.. if there was an incident in which the entire band was involved, like the Beatles or Led Zeppelinduring their later years, or were advocates like Tenacious D, OK, but otherwise it's kind of trivial, don't you think? -- Johnny w   talk  18:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah the information I have read/seen is sorta trivial. Also it would have to be sourced well because of BLP concerns and all.  daveh4h 19:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see the band that makes so many references to it (Gaping Lotus Experience, Third Eye), talking about it, when they don't do it themselves. I remember reading somewhere once where Danny Carey said that everyone should try something at least once. I could probably source it, but does it matter? I don't think it's that important. Wikidan829 21:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Two questions
By no means am I number 1 Tool fan, I'm just another guy that likes the music.There are two statements that I have found so far that I'm not sure are true that are not cited. Given the work we have done trying to find sources for all of the for this article I'm hesitant to just slap a fact tag on them, so I wanted to ask here.
 * "Ænima was dedicated to satirist Bill Hicks,..."

I know that he had a big impact on the inspiration of this album, but was it "technically" dedicated to him? I just read the liner notes (again!!) and see no "Dedicated to..." I know Radiohead did dedicate an album to Hicks, but not sure about Tool. However, Bill Hicks is specifically mentioned as an inspiration in the liner notes of Undertow.I also checked (not so thoroughly) google news archives for a mention of the dedication. Second thing:
 * "Clips of Hicks' performances appear on both Ænima and Undertow, including multiple sketches about psychedelic drugs and a sample of a bleating sheep."

Ænima of course I know there are samples of him, but was the bleating sheep attributed to him? Unless I am overlooking it, I didn't see this in the liner notes either. Of course this shouldn't be the only place to find this information it should be attributable to a reliable source.

I wasn't sure about these two things and since we are trying for GA more sources can't hurt. daveh4h 06:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, good questions, I found this after a quick search at t.d.n.:
 * :
 * "ALBUM DEDICATIONS: AENIMA features a panel of artwork depicting comedian Bill Hicks in a white lab coat testing the joints of a mutant boy with leg braces. The panel is captioned: Bill Hicks, another Dead Hero". They are talking about the LP version, the one we have in the article is from the CD, without the mutant boy with leg braces.
 * there is a pretty detailed interview about hicks with keenan prio the the release of aenima:
 * "After all, the late, Austin-based comedian gets big play on Aenima: several of his routines are sampled, there's a painting of him in the CD booklet titled Another Dead Hero, and t he disc's back cover inlay depicts Hicks' California-in-the-ocean "Arizona Bay" theory. So, while Keenan says Aenima isn't a tribute to Hicks, he's fully aware what kind of exposure this highly anticipated album should give the late comedian."
 * 
 * "Tool's latest record, Aenima, is dedicated to and contains material by that late Bill Hicks, the band's affinity for the Texan comic is well and truly emblazoned on their collective sleeve."
 * 
 * "Aenima (...) includes a view of Southern California being swallowed by the Pacific ocean, and a painting of the late Bill Hicks, a hard-hitting comedian whose sense of logic and exposure of irony parallels the intelligence and wit of the band. (The album is dedicated to his memory and he can be heard on the track "Third Eye.")"
 * And let's remove the bleating sheep bit, I think it must be a lost fragment, or an interpretation of some sorts that has been overlooked for quite a while.. -- Johnny w   talk  11:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * t.d.n. is down right now; I wanted replace the bit about psychoactive drugs and bleating sheep with a statement why Hicks was included... one of the articles above says s.th. about Hick's having the same philosophy as Tool but just expressing it in a different manner. Hope you agree? -- Johnny w   talk  18:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes!! Nice work Johnny. Thank you for addressing this.  About the album dedication, I would then say that it is a "dedication of sorts", although I dislike that phrasing.  I've  just rephrased the area in question and removed the bleating sheep bit, I'll leave whatever you want to add/cite/rephrase up to you.  I'm going through the article bit by bit rephrasing some of the more difficult areas and caught that.  Thanks again for addressing this, Johnny.  daveh4h 01:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe, no problem. Added a quote about the similarities of their philosophies and moved the drugs reference in 3rd Eye to go along with the reference. Looks fine to me now, am looking forward to your next suggestion. ;) -- Johnny w   talk  13:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm on vacation till Sunday..
..enjoying the Primavera Sound Festival. Don't think the GA review will start before that, but IF, I'll try to rejoin you on Sunday night or Monday.. See you then.. Johnny w   talk  00:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Have fun and be sure to not miss Explosions in the Sky. –Pomte 04:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I received a notice regarding a dispute about the fair use of the Revolver Cover we use in the article Image:Tool_revolvercover_20060105.jpg. Could someone look into this pls (and adjust the article, replace the image, etc.)? This would be a quick fail for GA.. Otherwise, I'll take a look when I return.. -- Johnny w   talk  15:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm back (obviously couldn't keep my hands off the article for the weekend). Explosions in the Sky didn't appear at the Primavera. Must be an error in the article. The Pumpkins were a little bit disappointing. And they didn't turn up the volume at the main stage to match the other venues until the very last act on the last night &mdash; unbelievable! Sadly, missed most of Isis due to the Good/Bad/& Queen, but enjoyed Kid Koala more than I thought I would. And always enjoy the White Stripes.. :) -- Johnny w   talk  14:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

10,000 Days Tour
The sidebar on the main page still lists a total of 67 shows. Isn't that the total from just last year? Has anyone done an updated count? Wangoed 15:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rather than update the box, which I wouldn't mind doing, I've removed it because it's unnecessary, redundant to prose, and makes the article too focused on recent details (it begs the question, why don't the previous world tours have boxes?) –Pomte 16:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Progress evaluation towards GA status
You waited until the right time. This article is simply excellent. The pictures are ALL GOOD. The article is neutral (haters do not have equal notability so the lacking of many controversies and criticisms is fine). Plenty of substance in the writing, as well as a good lead, because of the very thorough use of citations, so obviously there are enough sources for GA, or A-class for that matter. Once some one slaps a GA on this, immediately send it sometime in the future to peer article review.◙◙◙  I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢  ◙◙◙ 06:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * *celebrates* Thank you for your nice words, sure feels good to read your encouraging comments. But regarding the GA procedure: since you tagged the article as a reviewer on the GA-nominees list, shouldn't you pass or fail the article or did you only want to comment to provide another perspective? Thanks again, Johnny  w   talk  10:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Band logo...?
What happened to the band logo at the top of the infobox? Why was it removed? Many band pages have that, and I was kind of sorry to see it go... any reason? = ∫tc 5th Eye 04:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it was removed due concerns regarding readability, copyright, etc. (also expressed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines), since a lot of people use everything they can find as a band logo, or even make ones up. I don't mind that much, although I think in this article, it would be justified (since it's official, and will be for the next couple of years), as long as we don't start using logos in every Tool related article. -- Johnny w   talk  09:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem, IMO, is that Tool doesn't have an established logo like Slayer, Megadeth, or other bands, so choosing only one would be problematic. I think a graphic showing how the graphics for the name have changed from Opiate to 10,000 Days would be a nice addition to the article. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a really good idea as far as I am concerned, the only potential problem would be copyright, and I admit in understanding little about that, especially with use of images. That idea certainly would add content to the article, though.  daveh4h 15:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any issue about copyright, especially since most rock/metal pages have one. Personally, if we were to choose one logo I think it should be the Ænima-style block logo since they had that one the longest. I could easily make it myself in Photoshop (like every logo I upload) to avoid further copyright issues. As far as a "logo gallery", that would be interesting, no doubt. = ∫tc 5th Eye 15:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in a small timeline of Tool logos used during each album period, which we could then use in the "album artwork" section, whaddaya think? Would be cool, if we could determine who created which logo (grey, zar, jones?), too. Also: I think recreating a logo with photoshop doesn't solve any copyright issues, at least not in this case. It would still have to be fair use, and therefore it would need context. -- Johnny w   talk  16:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, using logos in infobox headers is not in violation of fair use... = ∫tc 5th Eye 16:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not saying it would be violating fair use per se. To comply with fair use we have to use the images in context.-- Johnny w   talk  17:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A logo timeline is a great idea as long as there's no copyright issue. I am picturing it in sort of a gallery type thing, and I often see things like discography galleries removed.  Like I said though I have zero understanding of fair use. Logo(s) used in infobox headers doesn't sound like there would be a problem and I like that idea too.  If there's anything I can do though let me know. daveh4h 03:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The logo was removed on June 4 for the reason that it is not "criticised" in the article. So what I've just done is put in a criticism of the latest logo looking like "fool". I have also this bit to the fair use rationale. Any discussion of the evolution of the band's logos would require reliable sources, and even the Tool FAQ doesn't talk about them. The wrench (Image:Tool-logo-early.jpg) however is quite symbolic. Here's a poll of interest. –Pomte 04:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the source you added is actually a user-comment to a two-sentence news-post. That's not a valid source for the "fool" statement imho. The evolution of the logos would suit me most, I'll give it a shot, if I can't find anything (e.g. found that the Wrench was done by Chet Zar, but lost the source again..) If you don't mind, we should find a different source for critical commentary on the 10k days logo. -- Johnny w   talk  09:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the comment was immediately made by the guy who wrote the post. Although the news is user-submitted, Sputnikmusic gives it some credibility. I figure there must be a better source for this, but haven't found one. –Pomte 17:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK my bet :) Well, I wasn't successful, couldn't find anything useful online. Unless we find anything useful, the idea is probably best put on hold. I'll add it to the to-do list, maybe we can reinvigorate it sometime in the future. -- Johnny w   talk  12:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Tool Metal?
This seems like it's been gone over a lot, but to me, Tool is definitely not a progressive metal band. I don't even think they are metal (alternative certainly) period. I know that statement is sourced, but a) I do not feel like allmusic is a reliable source (case in point: they call Disturbed "heavy metal, and they are most certainly not(http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&token=&sql=11:a9fuxqrkldfe)), and b). I looked up Tool at metal-archives.com (which is by the way, the definitive source for metal bands) and they do not have an entry there, which leads me to believe that they weren't included/aren't allowed a section on the site because they aren't metal.

Thoughts anyone? CPTGbr 02:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that I agree with you...The progressive metal addition was made by an anon . Genres are such a pain in the ass. :-D daveh4h 03:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you take a look at the genre allusions section, there's also a bit of Rolling Stone in the mix, calling them prog-metalheads.. Although I have to agree, that most uses of "metal" in connection with Tool seems to be only a reinforcer to their heavy sound compared to other rock acts. E.g. the term "art-metal" which doesn't really exist on its own but has been used a couple of times with tool. -- Johnny  w   talk  10:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to revert it soon, but I know people will revert my revert. I really would like to hear from people who think that Tool is metal. CPTGbr 02:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I also don't like Rolling Stone either, because on one of their top 40 lists of metal albums, they included Van Halen and Korn, I think. I'm pretty sure about the first one though. CPTGbr 02:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't mean revert, you mean you would move the reference from the infobox (the ref is used a couple of times later on, seem reliable enough for the rest of article), remove the genre, then go to the "genre allusions" section (have you read it yet?) and remove every mentioning of metal from there as well? I'd rather spend my energy on reading WP:NPOV. I like the "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. [..] Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in"-part, but don't want to spoil you the ending ;-) If you can prove that prog metal or alt metal for that matter have been overly and unduly represented, OK, that's a different matter, but if not, I don't think we have any choice but to live with it. -- Johnny w   talk  10:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Regarding metal-archives.com: they have entries for Soundgarden, Rush, Kyuss, Unida.. I mean.. COME ON! I love these bands, but would never even have thought that anyone could consider them metal. Maybe it's the same just the other way around with you and Tool ;-) -- Johnny w   talk  10:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * CPTGbr, do you dispute the use of metal at all in the article, such as "alternative metal"? Rereading your first statement that is what I think you are saying. Originally, I thought that you just disputed the "progressive metal" genre being used in the infobox.


 * While my opinion of Tool as prog metal may agree with yours, our opinions really mean nothing, unless we are writing for a reliable source. ;-) I was willing to agree with you that allmusic may not be the best source, but to put Rolling Stone in the same boat is a little unfair. Now it sort of seems that any source that does not agree with your opinion is unreliable.  What genre would you place them in, and what sources would you use to back it up?  Thanks,   daveh4h 14:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize. Usually, when I refer to metal, I usually do not include alternative metal for many reasons. So no, I would not "remove the reference or whatever you called it to alternative metal." Jonnyw: most of the bands you listed are also considered under the sub-genre of prog-metal. I have only listened to Soundgarden and Rush, but while I agree with you on Soundgarden, Rush could be considered Prog-Metal. Not going to argue about it here, but I still value Metal-archives as a great source for this kinds of stuff. Daveh4h: I do think Rolling Stone is a good source for music in general, however, I don't feel like they are so good at classifying metal. They have called bands like Slipknot and Mudvayne (http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/ironmaiden/articles/story/7263890/mudvayne_at_full_speed) metal, which is a big mistake. In the meanwhile, I will look for a reliable resource to end this debate forever. CPTGbr 06:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a link for a Tool biography by VH1: (http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/tool/bio.jhtml). The article never mentions Tool as prog-metal, but as Alt-Rock. CPTGbr 06:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2 thoughts:
 * 1. the VH1 biography doesn't write its own bios, but cooperates with AllMusicGuide (see the logo at the bottom of the bio)
 * 2. You have to read the AMG bio carefully, it's not saying they're alt rock, they're saying they "slipped into the definition in the post-Nirvana era due to Lollapalooza 93" which is putting it in historical context - which is what we have done with the "Genre allusions" section. Please go ahead and read that part of the Tool article. I have spent a lot of time researching and writing and others reviewing it (first a peer review, then GA reviewed.. you might say it's the current consensus). The point of the section is, that the genre they have been placed has changed over time, almost with every album they released (see the contemporary album reviews and articles). To concentrate on the infobox without looking at the article where we actually address the issue, and then say to go to "find reliable sources to end this debate forever" sounds misguided to me. -- Johnny w   talk  10:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ænima Demos
Some of you may or may not have run across these things floating around on various torrent sites. The "Ænima Demos" pack includes a demo of Pushit, Stinkfist, Ænema, and Eulogy. I'm just curious if anyone has any info about them, as I had no idea they existed until I found them. We know about the 72826 demo tapes, as they were legitimately manufactured and released to send off, but I've never seen so much as a mention of these things. They sound pretty authentic. Any info? --74.195.55.182 16:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I've heard a few, not sure if I've heard them all, (can't recall hearing "Pushit" and "Ænema" demos) what specifically do you want to know about them? I'm fairly certain the "Stinkfist" demo is authentic, as the demo is very similar to the way they performed it live before the touring for Ænima.  Same with "Eulogy".  daveh4h 19:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just curious where they came from. Where were they recorded? When? Were these sessions still with Paul D'Amour? Most importantly, how did these get to the internet? I could let you listen to them, by the way, if you're interested. --Aganar 18:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, at toolnavy.com they say they're done with Paul. So, since Justin Chancellor joined shortly before they actually decided on Bottrill as a producer, it's hard to guess where they were recorded, but it hints at a recording in the later summer of '95. -- Johnny w   talk  20:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Does ANYBODY know where to get the lyrics to these demos? It'd be interesting to be able to see what exactly they changed in the lyrics, but the changed parts are almost impossible to hear, like the whispers in Stinkfist. There are so many changes in the Pushit demo it's almost not even the same song, though, still hard to hear. -- A*dam w   talk  10:01, 23 June 2007


 * I'm sorry, I don't really know. Normally, the people at toolnavy.com can help with such things. On a different note, I would be interested in the question if we could add the info about the demos to the article? Or probably better to the Aenima article, what do you think? -- Johnny w   talk  14:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * IMHO the info on the demos should be included here as their first demo has it;s own article. maybe put something about them on the AEnima page.68.255.230.218 23:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * i added a note about the demos in a trivia section on Ænima's article.68.255.174.173 06:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Justin Chancellor recently said in the new Revolver that the band had sent him demo's of Aenima, Eulogy and Pushit. I beleive these are also the only three I believe had been credited to Paul in the booklet for Aenima. So I think it would be safe to say its Paul playing on it but since Chancellor has credit on Stinkfast it seems that one wouldn't belong with the other three unless they were done with Chancellor as well. Not saying with any certainty here but something to mull over.--Hobo (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Cam de Leon courtsuit
I have found another source regarding the lawsuit by Cam de Leon. tvguide.com says: Something more concrete and far less pleasant to the band is a lawsuit filed by visual artist Cam De Leon, whose work has been closely aligned with Tool for over a decade.

"He had done some artwork that we paid him to do in the past for our band and he came with this ridiculous lawsuit saying he's the fifth member of the band and a partner and he was head of our art department," said Jones, who won a Grammy this year when "10,000 Days" was named best recording package.

"There is no art department. I just feel like it's total extortion. We've been fighting it and it's been really burning a hole in my stomach. It's just been very distracting." The article has no year tag on it, the website auto-generated copyright tag is 2007. But I think it's rather 2006. Any idea how we can find out what happened to the lawsuit? Maybe any Californians here who could make a quick call to the lawyers' office (next link)? Here is the article published by de Leon's lawyers:. - Johnny  w  12:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

Maybe some helpful suggestions...
Hi folks, the following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and so.. some might not be applicable. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called  ==The Biography== , it should be changed to  ==Biography== .[?]
 * This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
 * Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): aren't.
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

My first comments: I think we can skip the summary style thing since we've already summarized the obvious parts. But I'd follow the suggestion about the headers immediately and change the first sub-section's header to "Early years". Hope you agree and find some of this helpful. Best wishes, Johnny  w   talk  21:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Subheadings in the History section
After giving it a bit of thought and looking at some of the featured band articles (well, at least the ones I like.. I luckily avoided clicking on Celine Dion by accident ;) I think it would be best if we change the History-subheadings. Currently, we have: In particular, I don't really like the second and third. I'll simplify the structure and titles by splitting the beginning into two sections. Now we've a section for each album release, which seems appropriate for the article I think: If you have any suggestions regarding new titles, agree with the new version or want the old ones back, please, leave your comments here ;) Johnny  w   talk  21:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC
 * Early years (1990–1995)
 * Ænima, legal issues, A Perfect Circle and Salival (1996–2000)
 * Lateralus, rumors and DVD singles (2001-2005)
 * 10,000 Days
 * Early years (1990–1992)
 * Undertow (1993-1995)
 * Ænima (1996–2000)
 * Lateralus (2001-2005)
 * 10,000 Days (2006-present)

I do agree with the new heading proposals - they seem to be more clear and concise. Thsi is true becuase Toll tends to have such long periods between albums and they are such a progressive band that when we discuss two different albums, we are also discussing two drastically different time periods. Thanks.--Hlandry (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Political lyrics source
Below is an article transcribed from Rock Sound that touches on the lyrical direction of 10,0000 Days:


 * Rock Sound (UK Magazine)


 * DEEPER THAN EVER
 * New Tool Album to Push Things Even Further Forward


 * Prog-metal pioneers Tool are gearing up to make their long-awaited return with their fourth full studio album, which is tentatively titled “Ten Thousand Days”. Due for release via Sony BMG on May 1, the 11 tracks featured represent the first new material to come from the LA quartet since 2001’s now legendary ‘Lateralus’, and herald a heavier direction for the band. Although the album was self-produced, Tool enlisted the recording know-how of Joe Baresi (Queens of the Stone Age, Melvins) to aid them, and have confirmed track titles including “Rosetta Stoned”, “Lost Keys (Blame Hofmann)” and “Ten Thousand Days”.


 * Speaking to Rock Sound, bassist Justin Chancellor explained that Baresi was instrumental in helping the band achieve a new level of sonic power; “Because he’s such a guitar-minded person, he really helped us achieve something we haven’t been able to up to now in terms of our sound. At first it was a bit of a trip when we first started to mix it. We had to get our head around doing it in a different way. But we quickly understood why Joe was doing what he was doing, and how it was helping us get better. It’s not just an overload of guitars though – he’s given each instrument its own space to exist and I think that gives the album an overall depth that was missing from the last one.”


 * Meanwhile, frontman Maynard James Keenan was unapologetic about the band’s long absence: “Clearly if I hadn’t been away with A Perfect Circle, it would have come out sooner, but it’s a complex record that needed time to come together and to solidify. I didn’t want to subject Tool to that pressure that a lot of bands put on themselves to get an album out quickly to keep everyone interested. For a band that makes the kind of music we do, it’s never going to be beneficial.”


 * Given Keenan’s pre-Tool career as an American solider, the album inevitably features a lyrical preoccupation with the much-debated intervention of Western forces in Iraq and the subsequent fallout, but the vocalist insisted that the new album will not see Tool climbing on to a political soapbox.


 * “There’s not very much use for sloganeering when dealing with something as complicated as this, so there’s no question about the album being simplified in the way that bands like Green Day have (done things). I’ve tried to employ a more emotional, cerebral element to the things I’ve seen in recent times and the idea of that is to initiate thought rather than aimlessly waving a fist. The other thing that I feel is important is to state how we are all indicted by this situation. There’s no way any of us can distance ourselves from what’s happening and there’s definitely no exoneration for people who chose not to look at it or think about it.”


 * The band have been confirmed as one of the headlining acts for this year’s Download Festival, and will play a London date around the same time.


 * Use what ye will. Skomorokh  incite  16:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Do you, by any circumstance, have the ISSN of that edition? Johnny  w   talk  20:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Alas no. It was from early March 2006, as far as I can recall. After some snooping, the best I can come up with is that the March 8th issue had Panic at the Disco! on the front cover. Probably best to leave the article out, what with the FAC brigade nosing around and all. Skomorokh  incite  17:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tool at FAC
Just a quick note, albeit an important one:

I nominated the article for Featured Article status. Please check Featured article candidates/Tool (band) frequently do help this article meet the Featured Article criteria. Johnny w   talk  20:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As a result of some of the comments on FAC, i've went through one of the sections and tried to limit the overuse of adjectives and what may be seen as pushing a POV, one thing I removed that may be perceived as major is this:


 * While seemingly contradictory, this is merely the result of "music genre" being "an ill-defined notion, that is not founded on any intrinsic property of the music, but rather depends on cultural extrinsic habits", such as fads or simply personal taste.


 * To me, describing what we might call "the uslessness of musical genres" is not the focus of this section and is a little alarming. Even though it is cited, it seems like OR, and we can do without it.  daveh4h 17:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Second attempt
Hi folks! After returning to Berlin, I've kinda settled in.. I've got an Internet connection and the time looks right to give the FAC another try.. Last time, I think we could have made it, the candidacy was archived when we were still in the middle of things. There were some very encouraging comments at the end, most issues seem to have been addressed (a big thank you to everyone, and to dave4h in particular :) After Raul (the FAC overseer) closed the candidacy, I tried to contact him twice about re-opening the process (following an advice of one of the reviewers, who felt the same way), but Raul was probably to busy. So I guess re-nominating the article would be the best thing to do. I was thinking about early next week, like Monday/Tuesday. Any thoughts? Johnny w   talk  12:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction between this page and Maynard's
It is said on this page that d'Amour completed the line-up, but the page for Maynard claims that Carey completed the line-up. Who joined Tool first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.205.169 (talk • contribs)
 * This article here should be correct, at least a source is given, the 1997 article in Circus Magazine, which stated that "Danny Carey, was an accomplished drummer who agreed to sit in with them. Someone who knew both Jones and original bassist D'amour introduced the two, and soon D'amour completed the line up of the soon to be named band, Tool." I will adapt the Keenan article accordingly.. Johnny  w   talk  13:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead proposal
This is a proposal to maybe address one reviewer's concerns regarding the lead: Tool is an American rock band, formed in 1990 in Los Angeles, California. Since then, Tool has gained worldwide success, critical acclaim and is credited as having introduced heavy metal to art rock.

Tool emerged with heavy metal music on its first EP when the genre was dominated by thrash metal. With the rise of the alternative metal movement in the early 90s, the band broke into American mainstream with the first LP Undertow in 1993. On the three following albums&mdash;Ænima (1996), Lateralus (2001), and 10,000 Days (2006)&mdash;the band pursued its efforts to unify musical experimentation, visual arts, and a message of personal evolution. All albums went platinum in the US, the last three won Tool a Grammy Award, and the latter two albums topped the charts in several countries.

Due to Tool's incorporation of visual arts and relatively long and complex releases, the band is generally described as a style-transcending act and part of progressive and art rock. The relationship between the band and today's music industry is ambivalent, Please reply at the FAC page, thank you. Johnny w   talk  22:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)