I have never heard of them
 

Course you probably wouldn't know the groups from 1960s on. When I was listening to music that led into the psychodelic pot smoking, everything was groovy like the white knight was talking backwards etc. I know the song but it would be wasted bandwith on you younger guys.

Adam Jones (guitarist) sums it up nicely:

Most bands have been taught that they have to write these
formulaic pop songs to be successful. As soon as you start listening
to those rules, you're in trouble. So we approach music as movements,
not necessarily "songs." What often happens is that someone comes in
with a riff and we jam on it-probably for too long. We go down every
kind of avenue we can, seeing what kind of feeling and emotions turn
up. If you do that enough, you start going on this little journey. I
don't want to get too pretentious about it-it's really just fun. We
don't say,"Let's write an eight minute song."

From the mouth of Danny on jamming at rehearsals:From the mouth of Maynard on opinions of Tool:

I voted for OK. I like a couple of songs, but I've never had any interest to listen to more.

Alright after 3 pages, I finally checked out this thread. My thoughts:

Prog is my favorite genre and this is how I see Tool. 7. They are okay. They just seem to be a radio friendly version of much better prog bands out there. They took the prog concept of many bands out there and made it accessable to the masses. And I would have given a higher rating but 90% of their songs end the exact same way. Formulatic. They are like the Bon Jovi of 80's hair metal.

So now they have a huge following that know nothing about prog or other bands in the genre and get defensive when you critique them. YES, they are the most creative band on the radio waves, but in the genre as a whole they are mediocre.

And like I predict, start the flames. ;)

Of course people can't dislike it for a legitimate reason. See more on this later in this post.

Examples of Tool taking their instrument to amazing levels?

You don't have to write for MTV to be concise, cut the padding, and make powerfully, interesting songs.

I don't buy into this. Why cut it up into tracks at all? If they really believed that, then it wouldn't be an issue. They're trying to posture themselves on one side of the fence, and are doing a pretty bad job of it because they can't committ. If the completely pointless intros and segues on Ænima really did something important for the next song (they really aren't songs on their own), why aren't they just a part of that song? If it's meant to be included, why cut it up? They have complete control over the presentation, which strongly points to a lot of this becoming random justifications for screwing around, which the diehards are quick to buy into. Same goes with "Disposition", "Reflection" and "Triad." If this is supposed to be one song, as is often claimed and substantiated at live shows, why cut it up into tracks?

If you want to argue points, find legitimate ones to argue. I've never said that songs, in general, can't be long because that's ridiculous. However, for those of you playing at home, I'll repeat that being long does not make a weak song good.

I'd be interested to know where I said either of these things. Anywhere. Or even applied it, remotely. If you can't find one, be sure to point out how you can't handle differing opinions and have to fabricate outrageous reasons behind them to comprehend it.

:hscratch:

Uhhhh, mordecai, I think db27 was just offering his own opinion of the band - not trying to debate you. No need to take things personal here. Just put the keyboard down and slowly step away from your computer. -wink-

I tend towards the belief that, in the heat of the moment, someone very soon will be saying something that gets themselves suspended - or worse - for a breach of board rules.

However, the thread will be left open and we can observe evolution in action.


Benedict
Moderator, Music Talk

It's obvious where my bias lies, but I'm with mordecai on this one. In particular, the last chunk that he quoted ("If you don't like...") might be interpreted as an example of the "If you don't love Tool as much as I do, I'm gonna assume some intelligence-insulting things about you" ideology.

"Complex and deep songs"? Not always! "Schism" is IIRC at least 6:30 and it's one of the most repetitive, lazily-penned tunes that Reverend Maynard has ever come up with. And I promised myself I wouldn't engage in name-dropping, but one of the most beautiful epics I've ever heard clocks in at a muscular 14.5 minutes - yet is not even a second overlong.

In short:

Establishing a Maximum Duration (which I don't think anybody in this thread has even come close to doing) beyond which a song is deemed "excessively lengthy" = dumb idea.

Noting that certain Tool songs are "excessively lengthy" because of mass repetition and / or streeeeeeeeetched out "gentle" passages = a perfectly valid argument.

Oh, and finally, "If you don't like Tool, don't listen to them" can be modified to "If you don't like well-informed opinions of Tool that fail to jive with your own, don't enter this thread [and just head over to TDN where you're more likely to read what you wanna hear]."

[Edited slightly for the benefit of benedict. :)]

me to, ya know why? cuz I wasn't aiming my comments at anybody, you included.

just simply stating where i stand.

lol! you guys are never going to convince invective and mordecai that Tool is a good band, so just give up.

you can go right ahead an modifiy that buddy, but don't do it for me cuz i didn't say it nor did i mean it. don't read into things to deep, you'll hurt yourself.

i meant very clearly, if you don't like them than don't listen. nothing more, nothing less. DO NOT put words in my mouth, it is not appreciated, nor is it necessary.

again, i never said that, my statement was clear. no interpretation needed. geez.

edit :db

You guys both need to take it easy. This is a thread dedicated to rating Tool. Debates are certainly welcome, but please don't start insulting each other. Just state your opinions on the band don't start attacking other people because they have a different opinion on them. Tell them why you dissagree, but save the sarcastic remarks.

Then why even say things like "If you don't like long songs, then don't listen to Tool. If you don't like complex and deep songs then don't listen to Tool, if you don't like to try and find meaning or reason behind songs, then yup you guessed it, don't listen to Tool. Why? Cuz that is what they do." When you say "you," obviously you're referring to people besides yourself. If you just wanted to express your opinoin, just say, "I like long songs, I like complex and deep songs, I like to try and find meaning in songs. Thus I like Tool." That would get rid of anyone who takes your generic "you" and applies it to themselves.

You make a very good point. People tend to get defensive when they talk about Tool because they are a love them/hate them type band and Tool fans usually take it personal when people say they aren't a good band. Just let them express their opinion and try to point out why your opinion differs from theirs without insulting them or using sarcastic remarks.

Let's not act like a bunch of tools here. Can we please get back to praising or bashing the band now?

FWIW, I'm now beginning to dislike Tool somewhat due to the convincing arguments in this thread. -wink-

I'm still interested in a Tool fan providing answers to some of the questions I asked, namely the track cutting one.

Mayhap the boys from Tool are intelligent enough to realize that not everyone will appreciate the little segues/intros, and they lay out the tracks on their albums in such a way to allow the skipping of such "songs."

how can i answer that? i didn't write or track the songs.

i'm honestly not sure why. perhaps they aren't meant to be one song, but to me they flow as one.

I'm sorry if I sound sarcastic. i'm not trying to attack anyone, fact is i dig tool, and wanted to give my feelings on em.

it doesn't hurt when someone doesn't like tool, fyi.

my bad, i think.

not me

I can't speak for mordecai, but haven't I said on more than one occasion that I think they're "good" and "worth a listen" - just nothing to have an orgasmically religious experience over?

I'm not angry here, just...........puzzled. I thought I devoted a paragraph a couple posts ago to calmly explaining the distinction between saying "Tool is overrated in some circles" and "Tool is 'not good.'"

One more time: I own the 3 LPs and find *some* things to enjoy on all of them. "Good" band? Yep. Far superior to lots of the stuff I hear on the radio as well. "Flawed" band? Absolutely. But, again, "flawed" != "fatally flawed."

And a big :up: to zig's last post as well.

Last thing - when gilbertr76 says, "FWIW, I'm now beginning to dislike Tool somewhat due to the convincing arguments in this thread. ;)" OK, Mr. Winky is noted, but this comes across as a 1-sentence dismissal of pretty much everything in the thread that's been said so far that you don't agree with. Well, maybe benedict's warnings were directed at least in part at me, but I feel I've been holding back thus far. If my "arguments" have been insufficiently "convincing," maybe I'll force myself to listen to all 80 minutes of Lateralus tonight - I got spare time - and give my most detailed yet explanation of why I called it "bloated and self-important."

To you no, to others yes.

simple huh? :)

Now if you will excuse me, Im listening to Tool right now and feel a need to get some lotion....

But if they're intended to add to the songs, why would they exist at all if you're allowing them to be expendable? Wouldn't that be the first sign that they are, in reality, expendable, and serve no real purpose?