Tool

[maxmillean]

I enjoy listening to Tool every so often. One of my favorite songs has to be Rosetta Stoned (of course having Lost Keys played before it). I first heard it at one of their concerts, but at the time I couldn't really hear the lyrics to well and I didn't really care for it. Afterwards my sister told me about the lyrics, I sat down and listened to it, and enjoyed it.

[freakish777]

particularly since the release of 10,000 days. Ultimately, you like what you like and come up with reasons for it later.

Blech.

That album, not so good.


As far as answering SirMustapha's specific question regarding why should he care if the syllables of each line of Lateralus follow the Fibonacci Sequence:

Typical lyrics will be written in some sort of rhythmic meter (Iambic Pentameter, Anapestic Hexameter,whatever) which leads to things sounding pretty repetitive (usually this is good within the confines of a single song, because you want your vocals to match the rest of the song). Because Tool is a prog band, they're experimenting with how to break out of the mold that everyone else is using when they make music. In short it's a breath of fresh air to hear lyrics that sound uneven, and yet fit the song well. It also can be fun later on discovering that they planned it in some way with a constraint they set out beforehand as opposed to it being a "happy accident" (and that the meter wasn't just some haphazard set of lines getting longer and longer).


I will never tell anyone "You need to check out this band Tool! They have the Fibonacci sequence syllabically worked into their lyrics!!!!1!11!!" I will however tell people that are already into Tool "Hey did you know that? That's a pretty out there constraint to put on yourself, and then still make the song work." For reference Lateralus is my favorite Tool song.

[UniqueScreenname]

Tool is thinking man's music. No better place for a discussion of them than here.

All the people saying that they get tired of them really quickly sadden me. Tool has the most complex music I've ever heard. Whether you are listening to the ridiculous time signatures or trying to analyze their sage-like lyrics, it is impossible for me to get over them. They are geniuses.

My favorites are as follows: Lateralus - being able to impart the Fibonacci sequence into a song, especially the way they did, is nuts. They started out by realizing the time signature is 9/8, 8/8, 7/8. 987 is the 16^th number. The fact that they even realized that boggles my mind. Not only do the lyrics follow the Fibonacci sequence in rhythm, but also in meaning. The whole thing talks about living on a spiral, which reminds me of how nature is filled with patterns of the Fibonacci sequence.

The Pot - I love the bass line. I love how the lyrics are filled with plays on words. Again, I LOVE the baseline.

Schism - I don't need to explain this one. Anyone that doesn't love this song makes me sad.

Ticks and Leeches - I really feel like this song above all showcases how talented every member of the band is. Maynard holds a scream for like 8 counts, the drums exhaust me listening to them, the bass like always is impeccable, and the guitar keeps it all from being too overwhelming for me to handle.

Alas, as they haven't had a CD out since 2007, when I was 15, I've never seen them live. However, I believe after a lawsuit with their record company, they are obligated to produce at least one more album. When it will come out, no one knows, but I live on with the hopes of more of their sweet music filling my ears.

[SirMustapha]

Typical lyrics will be written in some sort of rhythmic meter (Iambic Pentameter, Anapestic Hexameter,whatever) which leads to things sounding pretty repetitive (usually this is good within the confines of a single song, because you want your vocals to match the rest of the song). Because Tool is a prog band, they're experimenting with how to break out of the mold that everyone else is using when they make music. In short it's a breath of fresh air to hear lyrics that sound uneven, and yet fit the song well.

I am very familiar with that kind of thing. In some way, every artist breaks the mold in some way, however minimal and apparently insignificant, even though not every artist wants to break the mold. And I know (or at least I think I know) why Tool does that, but the thing is, if you really want to break the mold in a relevant and truly meaningful way, I think you have to do a little more than what they did there. According to what I've heard of Tool, their music is almost strictly tonal and very conservative in terms of harmony, the instrumentation of their music is basic, their melodies and riffs are typical of most styles of rock, and the most that they do is use odd time signatures (something rock bands have been doing for decades) and expand their songs for a little longer than usual. Setting the verses to some mathematical sequence is not a progression, it's a gimmick, and I frankly think it's completely irrelevant and not worth mentioning. But I had the displeasure to see some guy's video on YouTube going to great lengths to say "oh Tool are geniuses because they use MATHS in their music!!".

And before you say, yes, I recorded an album that is largely based on a single pseudo-random numerical sequence, but there were no "maths" involved, and that was a negative aspect and part of a larger, personal exercise.

I will never tell anyone "You need to check out this band Tool! They have the Fibonacci sequence syllabically worked into their lyrics!!!!1!11!!"

Don't worry, I didn't assume that from you. It does give me ulcers to read stuff like this:

Tool is thinking man's music.

Firstly, why is it a "thinking man"'s music, as if people are obliged to "think" while listening (as if it was possible to stop thinking)? Or as if there is specific kinds of music that it's impossible to "think" about? That's silly. It's as silly as that "Intelligent Dance Music" label, which has been condemned, for the same reasons, by none other than Aphex Twin, "father" of the "genre". Secondly, why is Tool, of all things, "thinking man's music"? I could be an arrogant snob and laugh that statement off namedropping Bach, Stravinsky and Reich, but of course I won't do that. I think it's silly to even call those guys' music "thinking man's music". It's a silly thing to say, in and of itself, simply because any music can be a thinking man's music, and because music should be a lot more than just that.

I will however tell people that are already into Tool "Hey did you know that? That's a pretty out there constraint to put on yourself, and then still make the song work."

I guess that's fair. But if you think about it, playing in straight 4/4 is also a constraint, and a pretty restricting one. NEU! pushed that to its logical extreme, with amazing results. In essence, it's impossible to make art without constraints, which is the whole point that led me to make my numerically titled album.

[Dream]

music should be

...

I'm consistently amazed by your opinionated musings.

[UniqueScreenname]

SirMustapha, of all the places to condemn music you can think about, you do it here, on the forum for a comic where most of the humor comes from an intelligence and knowledge based place? I do not mean that all of the enjoyment you get out of Tool's music is because you can think about it. I'm saying that the people that really appreciate Tool is based on their innovation, the deep thought processes they put into the music to make it special. It's people like you that only care what the music sounds like (or "I like the beat" as I hear most often) that has pop and hip-hop as the real moneymakers despite the fact that it takes no talent to produce it. I really don't think any fan of Tool likes them only because of the math, because if it was filled with math, but sounded like crap, no one would listen. I'm saying that that math is what sets them apart and makes them recognizable. There are only three bands I've ever listened to that I truly believe have a completely unique sound, and Tool is one of them. They wouldn't be that iconic without the thought they put into it.

[Dthen]

Oh dear. This ought to be good.

[TaintedDeity]

SirMustapha is involved. I bet it won't be.

[Deep_Thought]

In some way, every artist breaks the mold in some way, however minimal and apparently insignificant, even though not every artist wants to break the mold.

BWAHAHAHAHA.

Are we defining "artist", in the context of this discussion, as anyone with their name on a record, or are we being more specific? Because I can name 10,000* "artists" who cared not one fat-ass dirty dollar about "breaking the mould" but cared an awful lot about said fat-ass dirty dollars slipping towards their pockets six inches at a time on Maynard's dick**.

*It may not actually be this many.
**Penis reference inserted purely to appease SexyTalon. If you don't get it go and buy the "Special Edition" album of Salival and listen all the way to the end.

[freakish777]

In some way, every artist breaks the mold in some way

This is patently false.

playing in straight 4/4 is also a constraint, and a pretty restricting one.

Yes, playing in straight 4/4 is also a constraint, and a very boring one considering the vast majority of music is written in 4/4.

[Dream]

Yes, playing in straight 4/4 is also a constraint, and a very boring one considering the vast majority of music is written in 4/4.

Good old rock/pop centricity. 4/4 is not the majority of music. Western notation isn't even the majority of music. And 4/4, as with all time signatures, is really just a convention. It's not a constraint, you can change signatures, or just break the rules and let the musician work out what to do themselves.

[Deep_Thought]

Western notation isn't even the majority of music.

While I completely accept the rest of your post, are you sure about this one? I would have thought that the sheer volume of music produced by Western nations, or countries that use Western notation in the last 50 years probably represents the dominant majority of recorded music. Of course, this would all come down to how you define the "majority of music"? Recorded/written down/people hitting things with rocks?

[Dream]

Western notation isn't even the majority of music.

While I completely accept the rest of your post, are you sure about this one? I would have thought that the sheer volume of music produced by Western nations, or countries that use Western notation in the last 50 years probably represents the dominant majority of recorded music. Of course, this would all come down to how you define the "majority of music"? Recorded/written down/people hitting things with rocks?

I'd argue that most music isn't written down at all, and that many parts of western noted music are actuall non-western, shoehorned into the notation system regardless.

[Deep_Thought]

True, I can see your lines of thought.

But I'd still recommend against under-estimating the sheer amount of crap the pop industry has churned out since the invention of vinyl

[infernovia]

I like Tool, my favorite right now is Ticks and Leeches. It's a great glorification of single-minded vengence and anger. The amount of energy it gives is fantastic, especially at the end. It feels like you are yelling at someone as you shake the crap out of them, or you are ripping apart the landscape all around them as you mercilessly attack them (like in a comic book). Or someone else is doing that to you, depending on the mood. Very enjoyable, especially when you can shake the floor (better yet, your house) with your sound system. Makes the drumming even more awesome.

From the little I have heard of the band, I think they are well-constructed and well written (at the very least, catchy), even if they might not be exactly the greatest musical exercises or technically demanding (except for the vocals and the drumming). The lyrics themselves are off and on, it's ok. But yeah, Lateralus was an enjoyable album. Outside of that, I don't really notice the math patterns they choose and I am not really that interested in it. I mean we are talking about lyrics that go like this:

Black then white are all I see in my infancy.
Red and yellow then came to be,
reaching out to me, lets me see.

Seriously, who cares? It's a good gimmick though.

[Dream]

But I'd still recommend against under-estimating the sheer amount of crap the pop industry has churned out since the invention of vinyl

I wouldn't underestimate it, there are mountains of it. But I think it's probably balanced by all the non-4/4 stuff churned out by conservatories, film scorers, jazz arrangers and the like. All that stuff is just far less visible than the pop music.

[freakish777]

4/4 is not the majority of music.

Majority of music written/performed? Or majority of music consumed? Every time a song plays over a radio station, how many listeners hear that song? Every a band/DJ plays a song how many concert/club goers share that experience? Every time an mp3 gets played on an iPod, streamed over YouTube/Pandora/Grooveshark/Spotify/Slacker/MySpace/etc, how many people consume that piece of music? Not that we really have any way to measure that accurately, but I'd wager that the vast majority of music consumed on a daily basis around the world is in 4/4 time signature.

It's not a constraint, you can change signatures, or just break the rules and let the musician work out what to do themselves.

Obviously you can change time signatures in the middle of the song. I was replying to SirMustapha's claim that "writing everything in 4/4 would also be a constraint an artist could place on themselves" (paraphrasing). Placing that constraint on yourself would be a pretty boring (and broad) constraint, and I doubt anyone would find it interesting or innovative. Compare with "constraining oneself to write lyrics in lines of differing syllabic length, potentially based on a mathematical function." That's a tighter constraint to place on oneself, and could potentially be interesting. Is it maybe gimmicky as SirMustapha suggested? That's up to each person to decide for themselves. I'd say it'd be more gimmicky if one restricted themselves to only writing lines of 5 syllable length followed by 7 syllable length followed by 5 syllable length (a ghetto haiku, syllables don't exactly match Japanese on, and Haiku's are more than just on/syllable counts, but most people would go "Ohhhhh Haikus", it would feel more gimmicky to me because it would be more recognizable, and that form is already well established, maybe if the "Verses have Syllable counts that follow the Fibonacci Sequence" poetry form was more well established, I'd be inclined to agree with SirMustapha's assessment of it being gimmicky, but I'm not seeing it honestly).

Sorry if any of this comes across as me being a jerkface. Not trying to be.

[infernovia]

See, the thing is, I think the constraint/form of the music should be subservient to the experience of the song, that is the emotion/intensity/whatever. So it is definitely cool that Tool wrote a song in a weird constraint than normal, and it does sound very distinct and cool compared to a lot of other songs, but it isn't and shouldn't be the primary focus of music or so I feel.

I mean when I listen to a song like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dSztjpJNNk I don't really worry about the time signature and stuff. So it just seems really strange that you would give such praise for writing a different form than normal. And many bands often do achieve a lot under conventional beats anyway so I don't see the advantages of going off beat as that high. But who knows, I don't actually listen to that much music and maybe 4/4 will be really dull to me in the next year.

[freakish777]

See, the thing is, I think the constraint/form of the music should be subservient to the experience of the song, that is the emotion/intensity/whatever. So it is definitely cool that Tool wrote a song in a weird constraint than normal, and it does sound very distinct and cool compared to a lot of other songs, but it isn't and shouldn't be the primary focus of music or so I feel.

I mean when I listen to a song like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dSztjpJNNk I don't really worry about the time signature and stuff. So it just seems really strange that you would give such praise for writing a different form than normal. And many bands often do achieve a lot under conventional beats anyway so I don't see the advantages of going off beat as that high. But who knows, I don't actually listen to that much music and maybe 4/4 will be really dull to me in the next year.

I agree with what you're saying. I don't think 4/4 will be dull to anyone any time soon, since it's a (relatively) small component of the music (just that using it as your constraint seems uninteresting). It's just that constraints and doing things different from what others are doing tend to lend to the ability of the song to evoke emotion. Would Maynard's voice and words strike you the same way if the lines were:

Black and white are all I see, in my infancy
Red and yellow then came to be reaching out to me

instead of:

Black
And
White are
All I See
In my infancy (etc)

The short lines impact the emotion.

In poetry short lines, read quickly tend to make a piece sound desperate. As if the writer is suffocating.
In this case, Maynard pauses in between lines, giving it a different feeling that's harder to pinpoint (also because the lines have varying length as opposed to following a "normal" rhythm), but it's a wholly different feeling compared to what a song written with a different rhythm to the words would have.

[infernovia]

Don't get me wrong, I think it is important to have complexity of form which should allow more emotions to come out. It's just kinda weird that people are embellishing them for using some mathematic pattern, whereas I only noticed the expanding and decaying line length (don't know proper musical term). It's cool though, and if I was writing music, I would definitely find it interesting too I think.

[Deep_Thought]

Yeah, I decided that I liked Lateralus long before anyone told me the lyrics were in a Fibonacci sequence.

Stinkfist came up on shuffle yesterday. Hadn't listened to it for ages. Brought back good memories. Has anyone else seen the live version with the extended breakdown section in the middle? It's pretty good, but they move the distorted drum sound from the intro into the end of the breakdown, and I like it as an intro.

Still, better than the live version of Schism with the double-timed central section. I am not a fan of that.

[Brawls]

I keep hearing that Tool puts on an awesome performance or something... so at this point, I am left with the assumption that every last one of them had the deadly Motaba virus when I saw them, as most rocks give off a better sense of life and mobility than they did onstage.

Don't actually own any of their stuff, but having listened to Parabola, Schism, The Pot, and their version of No Quarter I would like some Tool very much (plz).

Record store is thataway.

Tool weren't always so anemic. If you're interested in a really raw performance from tool then here's a special video I always come back to.
Their 1992 gig at JC Dobbs
Edit: Original vid got taken down. Here's Hush and Bottom from the same gig.


It may not be their most technical performance but you can really see Maynard going all out, especially during Hush and Bottom.

[Narsil]

I cannot believe that no one has mentioned the holy gift yet.

tl;dr, some fans that dig into this kind of thing believe that, going along with the Fibonacci motifs in Lateralus, the album is in itself a puzzle, and not in complete form when you first get it. To listen to the album as it's actually meant to be played, you have to rearrange the track order to 6, 7, 5, 8, 4, 9, 13, 1, 12, 2, 11, 3, 10.

When you're done, it should look like this:

Spoiler:

Is it legit? I don't know, and to a certain extent I don't care. But I do know that I wasn't very big on Tool or Lateralus before I tried this, and afterward I can say that the album as a whole is brilliant. The restructured Lateralus is certainly my favorite Tool album and one of my top favorite albums for rock as a whole.

[Deep_Thought]

Hmm, I appear to be developing into the resident Tool Easter-Egg sceptic around here. As that post itself points out, that track re-arrangement is unlikely to be intentional as it splits Dispostion/Reflection/Triad up. Those were conceived as one song, split into 3 for the album, but played as a single block live (Oh how I wish I had been at those concerts ).

As I mentioned in the discussion about the 10,000 Days/Wings For Marie overlay further up, I think that Tool's live shows are the biggest hint towards what they "really" intended from their music.

[UniqueScreenname]

They're touring again! I'm going February 6th.

[AvatarIII]

That's cool, maybe they will be at download again, it's been 6 years since they did Europe, (Download festival 2006 is the only time I've seen them) it's about time they came back!

setlist

Spoiler:

Rosetta Stoned
Stinkfist (extended)
The Pot
46&2
Jambi
Sober
Schism (extended)
Lateralus
Vicarious
Ænema

[Deep_Thought]

I saw them 3 times in a year back in 2006 Download, Hammersmith 2 days after, then Wembley some months after that. Good times, good times. Are there any rumours of a new album? It's about right by their standards.

Mastodon supported that Wembley gig but their sound was so bad I suspect they were shortchanged by Tool's legendary practice time At least I'm going to see them in February to make up for it.

[Narsil]

Hmm, I appear to be developing into the resident Tool Easter-Egg sceptic around here. As that post itself points out, that track re-arrangement is unlikely to be intentional as it splits Dispostion/Reflection/Triad up. Those were conceived as one song, split into 3 for the album, but played as a single block live (Oh how I wish I had been at those concerts ).

As I mentioned in the discussion about the 10,000 Days/Wings For Marie overlay further up, I think that Tool's live shows are the biggest hint towards what they "really" intended from their music.

Yeah, I saw that too, and I understand where you're coming from, but at the same time I'd encourage you to try it out; I think the arrangement sounds better regardless of what Tool "intended".

[infernovia]

Is it legit? I don't know, and to a certain extent I don't care. But I do know that I wasn't very big on Tool or Lateralus before I tried this, and afterward I can say that the album as a whole is brilliant. The restructured Lateralus is certainly my favorite Tool album and one of my top favorite albums for rock as a whole.

It's surprising to me how anyone can say that. First of all because I really enjoyed Lateralus's original composition but secondly because the songs are soooo good anyway. The only thing I can assume is that parabol + parabola is such a great and easy song to get into that you are more biased to like the album as a whole, whereas with the original structure the beginning songs are more patient and shift intensity quite a bit.

[SirMustapha]

See, the thing is, I think the constraint/form of the music should be subservient to the experience of the song, that is the emotion/intensity/whatever. So it is definitely cool that Tool wrote a song in a weird constraint than normal, and it does sound very distinct and cool compared to a lot of other songs, but it isn't and shouldn't be the primary focus of music or so I feel.

Wait, NOBODY came up with a smart-ass response to your post? You said something that does not boil down to "I am so much better than all those SIMPLETONS out there", and people just ignored it?

Huh. I turn my back for a few months and people become lazy. Where is the snobbery, guys? Come on.

[infernovia]

a) I didn't come off as aggressive using a lot of words like I feel and I think, and that pacifies people I guess.
b) Pretty sure Dream wouldn't touch me with a ten foot pole, especially about art, and especially then.

[SirMustapha]

The "IMHO factor" in action, it seems. But what truly got me about the "discussion" here is that most people "discussing" are not willing to go deep into the causes and consequences of the facts, and only remain at the surface. When I say "every artist breaks the mold in some way", you can have a knee jerk reaction and simply say "that is patently false!!", or you can think about it and realise what I meant: every person is different, and therefore the chances of two people doing music exactly and perfectly in the same way is, well, infinitesimal. But it's easier to use the ancient clichés and fallacies and say that the "commercial crap" is "all the same" and only the music that I listen to is special. That's the desire of self-affirmation speaking.

Also, when I said that "even playing in straight 4/4 is a constraint", I didn't just throw that affirmation out in the open, yet people replied as if I did. But I gave an example, NEU!, which are simply one of the most important and most seminal experimental rock bands of the 70's. I could have also mentioned Stereolab, who spend most of their early career playing in straight 4/4, but then started to broaden their style and showed that they only played that way because they wanted to, not because they were technically limited or anything.

Most of the discussion here is driven by the need of self-affirmation, and that only helps to solidify the opinion I have of certain Tool fans: they need to feel intelligent. And it's not a coincidence that I'm talking about that in this forum.

[infernovia]

Well, I understood what you were saying perfectly well, and you obviously know what you are talking about. I don't have a problem with people rejecting those arguments, what I do have a problem is that they are ignoring the greater criticism and analysis just to reject a trivial point which could be corrected through a couple of minor word changes. For example, here is a really great analysis you did:

I am very familiar with that kind of thing. In some way, every artist breaks the mold in some way, however minimal and apparently insignificant, even though not every artist wants to break the mold. And I know (or at least I think I know) why Tool does that, but the thing is, if you really want to break the mold in a relevant and truly meaningful way, I think you have to do a little more than what they did there. According to what I've heard of Tool, their music is almost strictly tonal and very conservative in terms of harmony, the instrumentation of their music is basic, their melodies and riffs are typical of most styles of rock, and the most that they do is use odd time signatures (something rock bands have been doing for decades) and expand their songs for a little longer than usual. Setting the verses to some mathematical sequence is not a progression, it's a gimmick, and I frankly think it's completely irrelevant and not worth mentioning. But I had the displeasure to see some guy's video on YouTube going to great lengths to say "oh Tool are geniuses because they use MATHS in their music!!".

And the only thing that really gets a response is "This is patently false" and 4/4 is boring. Which is pretty lame.

[SirMustapha]

And I was growing afraid that I really had not said anything coherent, after all. I can deal with "I understand what you said and I think you're completely wrong", but I have difficulty dealing with "pick apart a single point you said, not bother to understand it exactly, and go BWAHAHAHAHA".

[Deep_Thought]

Dear Lord, I've been ninja'd by the man himself!

I responded the way I did to his earlier post because it honestly made me laugh like that when I read it. And wow, was this all a long time ago. I didn't respond to the rest because dealing with the points individually would take a long time, which I didn't want to do and at the end of the day whether you consider something "breaking the mold" depends entirely what your own subjective mold consists of.

But, well, I had nothing better to do this lunchtime. LONG POST ALERT:

Spoiler:

According to what I've heard of Tool

So how much of Tool has SirMustapha listened to? Like most bands, some of their most "experimental" and progressive stuff is not what has been released for radio play.

their music is almost strictly tonal and very conservative in terms of harmony, the instrumentation of their music is basic

Yes, they've mostly stuck to Drums/Bass/Guitar/Vocals. There are exceptions, particularly Disposition/Reflection/Triad, and the live versions of Pushit with Aloke Dutta. Then there's the frank weirdness of Merkaba and other live stuff they've done. Perhaps more importantly I'm not aware of anyone who plays their guitar or bass quite like Adam Jones or Justin Chancellor, respectively, do. I'd consider the layering up of some of their effects and their overall sound quite innovative. Justin's work on Disposition, Vicarious and Wings for Marie is particularly impressive, and I've always loved the multi-layered effects on Third Eye. That's without talking about Danny Carey's drumming, which while not the most technical on the planet is still a step far above most other drummers I've heard, and Maynard actually singing. He's not the best vocalist in the world, but Tool came from the metal scene, where you're lucky if you get someone who doesn't only scream or growl into the mic for the whole song.

their melodies and riffs are typical of most styles of rock

This one I just don't get, at all. "Most styles" of rock and metal have quite distinct riffs. Those differences are what often defines the particular sub-genres, and a whole bunch of metal doesn't really bother with melody at all (As I've pointed out previously, particularly the "Nu-Metal" that was around when Tool released Lateralus). Adam Jones's riffs tend to be pretty weird and take a while to learn, so I don't see them as typical at all. For a particular example listen to Jambi. When 10,000 days was released no-one had a clue how he was making that noise. It took the guys over at ToolTabs.net a long time to figure it out from concert videos.

and the most that they do is use odd time signatures (something rock bands have been doing for decades) and expand their songs for a little longer than usual.

Here there is little point in responding, because "the most that they do" really comes down to personal opinion. Tool were very different to anything else I listened to back around 2003, except maybe Opeth. Long songs were not cool back then.

Setting the verses to some mathematical sequence is not a progression, it's a gimmick, and I frankly think it's completely irrelevant and not worth mentioning.

Yes, it is a gimmick. But it is worth mentioning, briefly, because it is slightly interesting. We've done so. Can we move on now?

[UniqueScreenname]

TIL: Tool's roadies wear lab coats, and the concert isn't really worth the money. It was good, but not much better than the cds.

[Sheikh al-Majaneen]

Any new music played?

[UniqueScreenname]

Nope. Another disappointment.

[Sheikh al-Majaneen]

Oh. Probably would have been a waste of 80 dollars anyways.

[Deep_Thought]

TIL: Tool's roadies wear lab coats, and the concert isn't really worth the money. It was good, but not much better than the cds.

That's a shame, especially if there was no new material. Did they put on the usual visuals? They've never moved around a great deal on stage, so they can get a bit dull to watch