I think we can all agree that boo boo knows more about progressive music than anyone else on this board, and in the "Prog Education" thread, you'll find this passage:

"Complex musical arangements, virtuoso musicianship (Though this is not always a requirement, as in the case of Pink Floyd), exotic and precise musical scales, odd time signatures, alternate tunings, prominent use of instruments not common in rock music, solo passages for almost every instrument, unusual vocal styles and complex harmonies, alternatives to the "verse-chorus-verse" format, lengthy compositions and epics with multiple parts, which can sometimes be considered songs in their own right (The Yes hit "Soon" was released as a single even though it was originaly a final section of "The Gates of Delirium") and sometimes these songs can take up a whole album side or in some cases be split into seperate tracks (Pink Floyds "Shine On You Crazy Diamond parts 1 & 2"), obscure and sometimes fantastical lyrics, with complex and often intricate narratives and themes dealing with issues ranging from war, religion, history, literature, human mentality, spirituality and even science fiction and fantasy, concept albums (Sometimes refered to as "Rock Opera") that are often meant to showcase these narratives, linking of music with visual art with the use of surreal album covers and elaberate stage shows, imagery that can sometimes be used to illustrate the stories and themes that are discribed in the music and great dynamic range going from quiet to loud often in the same piece of music."

That's Tool in a nutshell. If those qualities do not make Tool a progressive band, I don't know what would.

That whole description could be used for a majority of classical operas.

It even describes most Andrew Lloyd Webber musicals and... the Lion King, Les Miserables, Miss Saigon etc. If you buy a CD of the music to those musicals, you get the same thing you just described.

Are they prog?

Note that the "Prog Education" thread is in the "Rock/Metal" section, insinuating that it is describing Progressive Rock/Metal.

Ah, so it depend on which thread its written about it then. Gotcha.

I was kind of under the impression that to be a progressive band you had to actually be progressive, meaning you somehow were making music progress. Bands that were trying something new and interesting with rock instruments. The desciption which Booboo gave does describe music by bands which were progressive at the time and whose music still contains surprising and thought-provoking musical aspects. Yes, they contained factors like virtuousity, key changes, odd time signatures etc. But those factors alone aren't progressive if its all been heard before, in a similar context. Pink Floyd and YES used the new-ish rock instruments in ways which they hadn't been used before - that's what merits the description 'progressive', not the ability to tick some boxes for what features in the music. Tool might tick the boxes, but in the (oooh, 7 now) songs I've heard by them there was not one single things I heard that I hadn't heard before. Not one single things that made my ears perk up and think "that's unusual". So, not progressive.

To me, saying that a certain type of music is progressive implies that you think that music is at the cutting-edge, pushing the boundaries of complexity, exploring what music is capable of. You can like Tool if you want, I have no problem with that, but if you seriously think they are delving into unexplored musical territories then, well, I just don't see how you can think that!

Hell, I've played in bands before which used all of the factors Booboo had mentioned and I doubt we could have reasonably be called progressive.

If you've only heard seven songs by them, you aren't exactly qualified to state that they aren't delving into unexplored musical territories, are you?

I saw not one bit of evidence in those songs that they had delved into new musical territories, nor anything that suggested they were capable of doing so. And if further listening is really required to allow me the right to make that judgement, then I'll happily waive my right and do something more enjoyable with my ignorance.

One of my friends told me on saturday that her mother, who is a psychologist by profession, had said that one of the type of mental illness is exemplified by:

"Somebody who does the same thing again and again, and expects to get a different result."

Ergo, if I were to listen to another Tool song, having already heard 7 which I did not like then I would be doing so expecting to dislike it. For me to expect otherwise would essentially make me mentally ill. For me to listen to a song expecting that I would not like it would make me an either and idiot or a glutton for punishment. As I am neither an idiot nor a glutton for punishment nor mentally ill, I will not choose to listen to another Tool song by choice.

You most likely heard older songs from the Opiate EP/Undertow, or you just weren't listening very attentively.

Not something to be so self-gratifying about.

The 'same thing' would be listening to the same seven songs over and over again, not different songs by the same band. Obviously, you are at least significantly incompetent when it comes to progressive rock/metal, as you seem to entirely overlook the well-known fact that it sometimes takes repeated listens to fully grasp the quintessence of a progressive song or album.

For you to refuse to listen to something that you've never heard before due to your own nonsensical presupposition that you will dislike it would make you a complete idiot.

How is that presupposition nonsensical? Are you seriously saying that its not pretty standard human behaviour to assume that you won't like something when you have not liked those thing which held closest resemblance to it? To listen to a Tool album would take how long? Half an hour? An hour? But I wouldn't understand it the first time, right, so maybe we're talking a good few hours for me to maybe, just maybe, start enjoying their music. And then we have to include time taken to find and buy the music, or to download it. Whichever route I take, it takes time and effort. And for what? To fully understand that they weren't actually playing the same riff over and over and over? In reality they were being so clever that they managed to play a hundred different lines through the song and make them all sound like the same riff? Genius.

No it wouldn't. The same thing would be listening to songs by the same artist. You might have made the assumption that the songs were all from the same album. They weren't. They were from different albums and I'm assuming that the person who let me listen thought they were the best examples, but I still didn't like them.

Fair enough. I got an A for my A-level music paper about the Rite of Spring and 100% for my Grade 8 rendering of an abstract piano piece, which I would have said were a bit more boundary-breaking than old moaning Maynard and co. But maybe when progressive music is played on overdriven guitars I lose all ability to understand what's going on. I bow down to your superior understanding.

Don't worry youself about that. All of this arguing is keeping the thread busy, so more people will come and look and the argument is entirely musical, so its not like we're spamming or anything!

Plus, I'm with Merkaba that the vocals don't click with me either. Apart from that I quite liked the music, but the guy's just kind of grunting tunelessly in my opinion.

EDIT: This post relates to that other band there... I'm going to bed...

Okay, i'm gonna try and move the whole tool debate to the tool thread, because its an intelligent music arguement...but I may **** this up cause i've never tried it before. Bear with me here!