Talk:Tool (band)/Archive 1

message: I removed a paragraph containing following text in strive of a NPOV:
:And finally, it is advised you do not judge this band by their decal affixed, t-shirt wearing audience.
- Repabil 16:36, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Paragraph

message: But due to their dedication to their craft, Tool has not let their songs be broadcast in an abbreviated form.
I removed this.  Tool's songs have been broadcast in an abbreviated form.  I distinctly remember hearing versions of "Aenima" broadcast on our local alternative rock station (KPNT, 105.7 in and around St. Louis) as well as stations near Dayton, Ohio (103.9 in particular) that had about two minutes cut out, lowering the song to a radio-friendly four and a half or so.  I could also point to Tool's allowing the bowdlerization of their songs as justification for the removal of this sentence.  -- goatasaur 18:19, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't "46 & 2" about genetic mutation?  -- goatasaur 18:15, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: Obviously my Tool's knowledge is limited (I know little about their previous to "LaterUs" albums). But I read the lyrics of ""46 & 2" and I didn't found any scientific information about the DNA (my also limited english tells me it's rather about changing, about the rage to found the same old sins & image in one's self). The title is more a more a metafora for how much one can change himself/herself. It's an opinion, of course. And how about the geometry? :) My only observation regarding the article is the emphasis of their "intelectual" preocupations when the songs aren't scientific at all (well, excluding all their links , of course, which are many). I repeat, only this emphasis upseted me and altough I am a Tool's fan I know my ignorance in their biography/interpretation. -- Curero 20:15, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, the word "parable" has etymological ties to the word "parabola" and I think the title of that song has something to do with the ties between the two words, especially since the song "Parabola" is the second part of the previous song, "Parabol".  The two songs were put together for the video, and were played together on our local radio stations as "Parabol/Parabola".  As far as I know, the only thing the song has to do with mathematics is the title... the lyrics (and the lyrics on Lateralus are cryptic as hell) have nothing to do with geometry. -- goatasaur 07:26, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: Jung is a tool, no pun intended. Psychobabble 22:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Obsolete

message: It says six currently, but to my mind it's only four since Opiate was an EP and Salival is a Live/Rarities dics?
Any thoughts before I change it to four? - Hellboy1975 1-Dec-2004
Sorry I just changed it before you posted.  It is indeed their fourth album. MrHate 01:30, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
Someone's out-clevering themselves, thinking they know what everyone else doesn't (that Opiate & Salival exist) when they're the ones making the mistake by overlooking the fact that albums usually refer to LPs only. I reverted someone's categorisation of Undertow as their 'second' album a week or so ago. So, yes, you're right - 4. Psychobabble 01:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Six or Four Albums? 

message: Tool generally list themselves in alphabetical order. Should we do the same on the article's first sentence?--Cassius987 07:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of Names

message: Post here about what you want to remove before you remove, and state your reasons. We'll listen.--Cassius987 15:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for putting it all back, just one thought though, most of the stuff seemend to be related to the CD's and therefore, wouldn't the be better off moved to those articles if not there already? hellboy 09:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, after taking a quick glance, it seems that the removed trivia bits are actually included in the album articles. Since the Tool article is quite lengthy anyways, why not remove them again and insert a short note at the beginning reffering to the related album articles?--Johnnyw 14:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Vigilantism

message: Also, the discography needs some help getting it to look better because it is misaligned but I can't figure out how to fix this. I know Johnnyw and I will also continue to add discs to this as we think of them, but according to tooldiscography.net we've already listed all of the true singles. There are tons of promos, however.--Cassius987 03:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! --Johnnyw 13:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discography

message: We are still quite neglecting this one. Sadly, we haven't even explained why there is a reading list by Tool. Maybe, we could combine the info about visual arts, the reading list (and dissectional.com) in a single section that covers their influences, inspirations and so on? I think it would be hard to seperate these topics from each other.. --Johnnyw 10:17, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
:This would fall well under a section that talked about Tool's influences. It might be more journalistic at this stage, however, just to link to an outside website that lists the book guide. But I really appreciate the reading list being on this article just because of the wiki links to the books, so I'll be sad to see it go. I'd like to find a way to keep it. But we must maintain the article's integrity first.--Cassius987 02:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on reading list

message: Ok, Cassius, two thumbs up for that one from me. The sub-article is quite extensive and well written, although I don't know if some of the general prog debate could be shortened. Also, when saying "Some consider Tool to be, above all else, a progressive rock band" we could quote allmusic or the associated press, like I did in the list on nu metal bands debate. That way, we could give that view a voice which makes the notion less vague. I try to take a closer look at it when I have the time, which will not be the case for the next couple of days I am afraid. Thanks for addition! --Johnnyw 15:00, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
:Feel free to throw in links or neutralize it. It's only a first draft, after all. I admit that the prog part ran long, and I can only justify this in the sense that the majority of people consider Tool to be a part of the "great prog debate"... to see what I'm saying about how many people really think Tool are prog or debate about it, just google on "Tool + metal" or some other genre, and you'll also see progressive rock pop up quite often. I do think we should link more in that section in order to remove vagueness. For now, I feel certain that the prog debate deserves its length as it seems to have the most substance. Subsequent paragraphs have less serious and longstanding substance to devote to their subjects.
:And, thanks for the thumbs up.--Cassius987 23:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While certainly influenced by the listed prog-rock archtypes (and singling out King Crimson as the best match is very appropriate) not mentioning The Melvins as a primary influence gives the impression that Tool's music is a lot less grinding/gritty than a reader might take away from the article. (71.233.165.69 20:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That was definitely an awkward sentence before, and still in now. Post suggestions about it here first instead of just replacing the edit, since I don't think there's a quick answer to this one. We probably need to change some of the diction.--Cassius987 23:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments About Genre & Categorization

message: I've taken the liberty of categorising the links list a little, removed a couple of dead ones and made some type changes.  It seems to be a pretty extensive list (though they're all relevant in some way), and I was just wondering if any one had any comment on what should or shouldn't be on this list.  Personally I'm pretty happy with it, but it's probably as good a time as any to discuss it.  Merry Xmas! hellboy 00:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, after a quick glance, it looks like a nice idea! I'll take a closer look after I return from the holidays. Thank you, very much. =) --Johnnyw 10:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very pleased with this edit. Thanks for helping the article.--Cassius987 21:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: My ideas for now including developing some consistency rules about in-wiki linking people's and band's names, such as Danny Carey vs Danny Carey and whether or not you only highlight it the first time it appears in the article, in a section, or every time.--Cassius987 03:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, here's how I'd like it to be eventually, once myself or someone else has had the time to sweep the article... eack wiki link will be linked once and once only PER SECTION. So Danny Carey may be wiki linked perhaps 5 times in the overall article, but only once per section (i.e. Opening paragraph, Current, History, Etymology, Trivia, etc etc etc). Thanks!--Cassius987 01:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

text: AFAIK, February 6, 2006 is recommended. --Johnnyw 13:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency rules