I didn't say a specific metaphor....
And even so, they have used that specific metaphor. You want to nitpick and say using Eden doesn't make em' original, that's fine. Doesn't make Dylan original either, and that's all good. If using a monkey metaphor makes em' cliche in your eyes, that's your opinion.
To tell you the truth, I don't see dozens of songs comparing men to monkeys, though I know of plenty of authors who do so.
Once again, everyone has their opinion, and I hope this little discussion is over with and done.

I was talking about a specific metaphor this entire time and frankly I'd like to see proof for this. Because I really don't believe a bunch of very orderly people were singing a song about war using Eden as a metaphor with no god metaphors whatsoever.

Dylan's the first I've seen using it in that way, you're offering nothing actually substantial. Normally I'd take you at your word but I'm extremely skeptical.

If authors use it plenty of times then guess what? That makes it a commonly used image, thus cliche. The most recent example I can think of is Rilo Kiley's It's a Hit.

We're talking about objective matters right now, opinions don't mean a thing.

Considering as how I work as the sound technician for a local church, I happen to know it's used frequently as a metaphor for man's warlike nature. If you want some proof, I'll give you some directions and you can join their Sunday School. Or you could spend 12-13 years in classes devoted to it, then come back and tell me you've found no proof that no one ever used it as a metaphor. Seriously, quit the nitpicking and drop the subject. Emo is a commonly used theme in songs, so I suppose the entire emo genre is cliche. Let's drop it, eh?

Emo is a genre of music, it can't be cliche or a theme in music...

Since you're so learned in this it really shouldn't be hard for you to google one of these many songs should it?

It's called "End of Eden" and non published, but like I said, you can always come down here and talk to the guy who wrote it. Our band leader writes alot of the music for the church itself, and most of the lyrics. He has written a song and sermon on Eden, and how man's warlike nature has continued to increase ever since. How such trivial arguments end up starting full fledged wars. Let's see...common themes to emo music. Suicide. I could probably find a bunch of bands in the emo genre who write about suicide, and call their songs cliche. You'd probably jump all over my ass in defense, or whoever would happen to like the band in question.
Now seriously. Are you ****ing done yet? =)) Worse than arguing with a decrepid old man. I can't keep this up all night, Ethan.
You can't allllways be right or have the final say, so give it up for both of us.

Um, you realize Bob Dylan wrote Gates of Eden in the 60s right? So unless this guy is really really old, like in his late 60s or 70s he didn't write before Dylan did.

I doubt you could even name any emo bands.

Bright Eyes isn't emo?
Hawthorne Heights?
Panic! At The Disco (in my eyes, anyway)
And the guy is in his 50's, and he hasn't listened to Dylan a day in his life =))
I seriously doubt he has, anyway, and he damn sure wouldn't copy from him.
Even so, that is still saying Dylan is the first person to EVER write a song using Eden as a metaphor. I know for a fact there were plenty written thousands of years ago, so start watching the History channel, or go enroll in some kind of Ancient Arts class or something. I can't sit here and cite public articles and show you, and you can't prove to me Dylan was the first man on earth to do it. You're basically telling me that Bob Dylan was the first person to ever write a song using Eden as a metaphor at the moment, and you and I both know that's not true. I hope you do, anyway.
Are you done with this discussion now?
And if not, for ****s sake why the hell not?

:laughing:

None of those bands are even close to emo.

So Dylan wrote it before him, your one actual thing of proof doesn't prove a thing.

See I really don't believe you, BECAUSE you've yet to state anything substantial and you keep going off on things that aren't relevant to the discussion showing you don't have a strong argument. Even if Bob Dylan isn't the first to use it, that still proves Maynard isn't the first because Bob Dylan did it and apparently so did other plenty of people thousands of years ago.

The song idea isn't original and it's pretty funny seeing as you stated you'd never heard anyone use eden as a metaphor before and now you're going on about all the different people who have used it as a metaphor. You've proven yourself wrong, you've proven Maynard's song isn't original yourself and I've already proven it's cliche. I don't know about you but I don't consider unoriginal and cliche to equal good lyrics.

I have never heard a band use it as a metaphor until Tool. I never once said in any post that Tool was original for using Eden in the song. I never said they were the FIRST to do it. I said, "I HAVE YET TO HEAR A BAND USE EDEN." Not once did I claim them the original users of Eden, and I even said that ages ago. I said it wasn't cliche. You're the one that nitpicked like a child, and changed the subject and said, "well that doesn't make em original!" Well, newsflash for you kid, it doesn't make Dylan original either, because it was done plenty of damn times before him. So now that you've danced around providing me proof that Dylan is absolutely the first person to do it, will you quit proving yourself to be like a damn 2 year old, and drop this ****ing subject? It's like you would argue with a damn brick wall if you could. Do you have nothing better to do then sit on musicbanter all day long, and try your best to find random **** to have the last say in every subject? Drop it while you can bungalowbill. I'm done.

Edit: And so I don't get some smartass reply about it, "End of Eden" was written early July of 2007.
Therefore Tool was the first band I've ever heard to use it as a metaphor.
I haven't listened to much of Dylan, and don't intend to any time soon.
Alllllll off topic. The song, Right In Two, is not cliche. I don't see an assload of music about Eden floating around on the internet or radio, anywhere. So good arguing to you Ethan, but I've made my points. If you want to argue with yourself though, keep postin'.

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.

See, what I'm saying is that Tool are purportedly deeply philosophical. MJK writes stuff under the guide of it being profound, poignant, penetrating. If none of these pretenses existed, then there'd be little to say on the matter.

There is one thing you've got to say, that I am interested in though. Where did you hear that Maynard was interested in indie?
That caught my eye. I think it was you that said it.

Edit: The entire album struck me as deeply thought out, for the most.
Vicarious, Jambi, 10,000 Days, and Right In Two.
Those were the best tracks on it, in my opinion.
I enjoyed others like The Pot, and was disappointed with Lipan Conjuring.
If the album doesn't impact you as being thought out as a whole, then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
I just wish these discussions can come to a much faster and better end, than the previous one of tonight.

Maynard James Keenan | The A.V. Club

This interview seems to point in the direction of Maynard having musical interests lying far enough outside of the metal genre. About a quater down he discusses the decision to take Mastodon on tour with them and states his preference for taking the likes of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs or Autolux. It's a decent interview in general, though.

Hmm. Kinda strikes me as odd, since his lyrics in A Perfect Circle while somewhat lighter, (and better), still hold his same old style.
He's also fronting the new band Puscifer, and they attempt to get even darker than Tool on some points.
I wouldn't mind seeing him branch out. Wonder why he isn't doing it.

Edit: Now that I've read the interview, it doesn't seem like he wants to branch out into indie territory.
I think the point he was trying to make, is that he just didn't want darker bands than Tool opening for them.
He'd rather have something like an indie band do it. That's the way it comes off to me, anyway.

MJK \m/

What I was getting at is that his own musical interests span well beyond prog and metal. He has been experimenting with various styles and, well, Puscifer wouldn't even fall under Rock. He'd probably like to try all sorts of things.

The problem is that, due to industry demands, Tool have to be Tool. Working within a fairly limited framework of ideas, they did all that they could from Undertow to Lateralus; they went virtually everywhere that they were able to go within that restricted framework, while still remaining Tool through and through. This is the reality behind why this band records quite so very little: they know how easy it is for them specifically, as a band, to burn themselves out.

When the time came to record that fourth LP, they'd already mostly reached a deadend. A group in a less restricted position might have sought to reinvent themselves entirely. But Tool had little option besides pandering to the fans and making what was in the end a pretty fan-friendly record.

What I question, ultimately, is whether, given an entirely free reign with no expectations from any quarters, Tool would have made 10,000 Days. My personal point of view is that they would have tried something rather different.

Hmm. That is a fair point. Unfortunately, alot of bands are restricted by their labels from going into alot of experimentation. Such restrictions hinder a band's creativity, and drives them into dead ends. It is possible they would have done slightly better, but I enjoy the album for what it is.
This may also explain why they used every little bit of album time the label would allow. Down to the last very last second.

hmm wellllll
i didn't read any of that.
But remember winning an argument on the internet is like the special Olympics, even if you win, you're still retarded.

Tool was good, for a listen. Not like i would **** all over them.

Hey, now. Self loathing isn't allowed!
Calling yourself retarded in front of other members, might make us think you've flipped! ..>.>

They've practically done that on the last three albums. I was never entirely sure why they had to have them completely filled. I mean, I know how a lot of fans like to say that every single track on Aenima is vital. I guess partly what they want to do is make it as if they're creating something that goes beyond simply being an album. As in, a comprehensive work of art in sound in which every component part fills some greater purpose in contributing towards a fully coherent whole.

My view is that Tool never excelled with the soundscape tracks. It's not their specialty. They can never compete with soundscapes from real actual ambient artists. Viginti Tres for example isn't even interesting, let alone an accomplished soundscape. What it comes down to ultimately is that Tool are at their very best when doing one of two things: either building up energy within a song towards a peak, or just plain rocking out. The rest they'd be best not bothering with.

I can definately agree with that.
I prefer it much better when it's a solid song like Schism, or Sober.

This album has too much filler for me. Otherwise it's great.

I honestly would have preferred if Tool had released an EP with Vicarious, The Pot and Jambi on it. And then, release them as singles with the rest of 10,000 Days as the B-sides.

I saw tool in Tulsa on Nov. 19th. I was told that this is their last tour? Anyone heard about that?

I was thinking more from the standpoint of keeping well free from ending up with a largely dud record. But now that you mention it, I wouldn't be half surprised if they could've found a way to make more money doing it the way I said too.

"Seems highly unlikely that it's their last tour."

I dunno. I certainly can't imagine them doing another album.

It's their last tour promoting 10,000 Days.

I believe they are contracted for one more.

Doesn't mean a thing.
Just means the record company can stick out a live album or a best of without the bands permission.

Or maybe they were just content at the prospect of 5+ million dollars worth of sales in the first week. Which is just as well, anyway. I'd sure as hell be :D


On the topic of albums, does anybody reckon Tool will actually make another one? I'm uncertain myself, mostly for reasons already stated. I'm simply not sure where Tool can realistically go from this point. Regardless of what anybody might think of 10,000 Days, the fact is that a lot of actual Tool FANS were disappointed in it in at least some way. As for those who were not disappointed, they'll generally admit at least that it wasn't the record to rival the highs of Lateralus that they'd been hoping for.

Would Tool further risk losing what they've created, or would they rather call it a day and be remembered for the highly regarded albums rather than the 1+ failures to emulate them that came later?

I personally enjoyed 10,000 days more than lateralus. Lateralus got really slow at times, and lacked punch. However 10000 days is less overproduced and is just a more edgy feel (ie rosetta stoned) which I liked a lot.