You're rehashing your disproven points now and throwing out petty insults. I'm obviously the two year old here. You say I need to learn to admit when I'm wrong? You're clearly tripping on your own words here. You do realize I've never heard it used this way before Tool is essentially saying it's original right? I was the one who said it was cliche and I backed it up, you never disproved it in fact you added to it with the authors comment. The song is unoriginal (as you proved) and cliche (as you helped prove). I will restate my original point since both things have been proven established. The song is cliche and unoriginal, those don't make for good lyrics and lyrics, especially bad ones can't be the saving grace for a song.

wowee, prog fans sure take being wrong hard

Your own poetry can be considered cliche, then. How many poems have you posted about some kind of "lover being hurt"? I proved it wasn't cliche, and just because the lyrics don't appeal to you, it doesn't make your opinion a fact. But that's alright. I'm done with this argument, but I am not done with you. We can continue this in pm if you want, but before the end of the week, we will anyway.
Goodnight, Ethan.

What do you mean, "how do I have the right to have an opinion on something like that"? It's called making inferences. It's fairly common practise. The album suggests, explicitly points even, towards a fundamental lack of ideas. This is the impression people generally get from it, that is, all but the most unrelenting of Tool fans who would refuse to accept that as even being among the range of logical possibilities. On the contrary, why should I NOT have an opinion on something like that?

That there aren't an awful lot of ideas contained within this album is nothing that strays too far beyond the realms of the obvious. As for the question of how long it would take to write, then fair enough, there's no way anybody could possibly know that. Actually, the guess I was making was an attempt to construe Maynard, Carey and the boys in a better light. I mean, it could well have taken them years to write all those tracks, but if it did then that's rather downright shameful. I'd rather hope, or like to think, that if they put their collective brains together and spent a good long time on a project they'd be able to accomplish something at least a good (if not a great) deal superior.

To Ace, on the topic of "Right In Two", my views have been summed up by other than myself here. The lyrics are at best mundane, and that they are hackneyed is beyond question. Go read a few actual BOOKS (know what they are?) on philosophy, religion, anthropology etc.. I promise you you'll never find Maynard James Keenan's lyrics profound again.

Considering how religion has been part of my life's education, I fail to see your point on how it's supposed to make me think less of the song. Care to tell us why you feel it is 'mundane'? I fail to see how you can seriously be a Tool fan, and not like the song Right In Two. But you know....opinions are like *******s, and everybody has one. Some just stink O.O

Well, it'd probably be a stretch to call me a "fan". But I have liked some of their work. Maynard's lyrics used to contain a lot more subtlety and that was one of his strengths. 10,000 Days by contrast felt very forced. None of the points were made with any particular verbal dexterity.

The topic in this particular song is how pointless, needless fighting over territory has been so prevalent in the history of man in spite of having the gift of superior reason over the rest of the animal kingdom, and "free will". It is narrated from the omniscient perspective of the angels. There is nothing profound in this. It is mundane in that it's pretty unspectacularly ordinary and unimaginative. It's been common subject matter for centuries in religious circles. In fact, in the Muslim holy book the angels dispute the creation of man with God, arguing that having this particular creature inhabit the earth will lead to corruption and bloodshed. This is incredibly reminiscent of Maynard's verses. And talking of humans as being more advanced monkeys is as old as anything in the modern world. The entire topic is hackneyed and anything but profound.

And your saying that this is very overused with today's bands?

No, but I'm saying that it's fairly mundane subject matter as far as the world of philosophical discussion goes, and putting it in a song is by no means profound. In addition to that I do certainly feel that it wasn't done with much subtlety or many other redeeming lyrical qualities. Maynard's done a lot better than this.

Later on I think I'll return to point out how Vicarious is suspiciously familiar in content to a song by Gang Of Four.

Well...I hate to break it to you, but the world of modern music is not in the philospohical realm.
And if you don't think the song is cliche, (which I believe you've been neutral on so far), good for you.
I highly doubt most people buy an album, come home, and think, "I wonder what kind of philosophical aspects
I can discern from this song." Specially with most people.
The lyrics may come off that way to you, but your opinion does not make that fact.
Same with mine. My opinion is that the song kicks arse, and you don't like it.
So...you suck....:finger:
Appreciate your views though.

No. Arrogant jackassery is half the fun of it.