I can listen to tool. Although, i have yet to fully develop a taste for them. It's been an exciting journey immersing myself in their music lately. I've been questioning why i avoided their music in the past
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
Lol. Not even close. I don't feel the need to decide because it is horribly unnecessary. I see distinction between the albums, but not really in overall quality as they are very comparable in those terms imo. Therefore, I enjoy them about the same amount, and it would really depend on my state of mind at the time of listening as to which one I prefer most.
Because fibonacci sequence has never been used in popular music before? Do you realize that fibonacci sequence exists in many songs whether conscious or not? Time signature and tempo changes are a standard of any progressive band and Tool really aren't really that complex in that manner to tell the truth. This is why I hate Tool fans. They think the band is more talented than they are. They are an above average band, but they are not deserving of the kudos they get.
I'm realising a pattern here, but I'll raise that issue next.
The problem I think YOU have is that while you are a fan of supposed progressive music and progressive bands, be they metal or rock or whatever else, you seem to lack the ability to perceive anything contained within the songs or albums that isn't able to be pinpointed. You can pinpoint technicality, so you can appreciate it, and of course you appreciate whatever sounds you like, but when it comes down to appreciating that element that really puts a band above others that can't necessarily be pinpointed, you decide to say it's not there. In reality, it's another subjective thing that you just don't see, because it's not for your kind of fan.
Dream Theater etc do the same kind of technical stuff to show off, Tool do it with better execution and better meaning in my opinion.
You seem to feel that if something has ever been done before, ever, then it's ruled out of being considered creative. You did it with Anonymous by Tomahawk, despite that album sounding like nothing else, and you're doing it with Tool. Such use of fibonacci being done before doesn't mean it is taking anything away from Tool doing it in the way they do, or did.
Who else is doing it? Nobody really, it's not some super regular technique that anybody has the ability or mental creativity to pull off.
I say the exact opposite to you.
I find it to be no coincidence that you are a pre-Kid A/Amnesiac Radiohead fan, and find Tool to be nothing special outside of what you can perceive. In reality, you are like a musical athiest. You can only appreciate that which can be seen or technically proven, or something as subjective as "I like the sound.". You seem incapable of accepting that there is something there, but it's just not for you. Perhaps it's your affinity for progressive bands who have instrumental talent and write shit that is as interesting as paint drying, aside from the likes of Opeth. Perhaps you like bands being better than average, but just accessible enough and to your taste to warrant rating them.
I dislike Dream Theater, but I accept they are phenomenal musicians.
I hate Tool fans who go around acting like they are gods among men, the best musicians at everything ever, but I also hate people who in retaliation to that, undermine the band's extraordinary talent, which you are doing.
You think I don't understand why people love Tool as much as they do? No, that's not true at all. To quote a friend of mine that's favourite band is Tool: "I just get lost in it for hours. The ambiance, mood and emotion are just awesome". This I think is very fair and is why Tool is loved by many people. The way they connect everything together so well is why people love them more than other bands doing similar things. I have subjective reasons for loving many bands I do more than others, what I think makes them better than all others. And I do not feel it necessarily has to be creativity. If you what you said were true, I would not listen to bands like Pelican or Korn's first album.
I would disagree that Dream Theater does technical things to show off because they are capable of doing much more technical things than they do. I would suggest they do it because they know how to use theory to express what they want. I do not agree that Dream Theater lacks feeling because many of their songs are very emotional. However, I think LaBrie kills a lot of the emotion put in by the musicians. I would agree that Tool has more passion and feeling in their music, but I disagree they execute it better.
Have you heard the people I suggested sounded very similar to Anonymous? I would concede that Anonymous is done better and has the advantage of public access, but it's ideas are not unique. Now I understand that it probably a very unique sound to reach Great Britain, but when you have two native reserves less than a half hour drive from you, it isn't as impressive as you'd think. You are correct in asserting a technique being used before doesn't make the person uncreative automatically, it depends on who has done it.
Are you familiar with Brian Transeau? He used it before Tool and has used it since. Brian Transeau would be an example of very creative musician.
To the contrary of your assertions I love Hail to the Thief and think In Rainbows is a strong if disappointing album. In fact, my attraction to progressive bands is actually rather limited. If your assertion was true I would enjoy bands like DEP, Nile, Spawn of Possession, Watchtower, Spastic Ink and the like. However, I do not. And also to the contrary of your assertion, I find Opeth very boring and find that they tend to suck at transitions and songwriting. They have a lot of talent and a lot of potential but don't put their music together well. I like many unaccessible bands like Spiral Architect and Anacrusis that I know many people strongly dislike. It makes no difference to me.
That's fine with me.
You see, the problem is that the band doesn't have extraordinary talent as musicians. They are simply above average technically and are simply more willing to use complex techniques than others that don't. In terms of technicality they are leagues behind hundreds of bands. I've seen local bands that put Tool to shame technically. That is not why anyone should enjoy them. People should enjoy them because they craft good songs, regardless of their technicality.
That's why people would say they love Britney Spears, essentially because it sounds good, but in a more eloquent way. It's the same reason people love U2 so much. I don't understand it, I won't ever, but there's clearly something there that is more than "I like the sounds". The same can be said with Tool.
I don't think that's the case at all. I think they are just showmen who are coincidentally making music.
Fair enough.
You living next to two native reserves means you are just more exposed and less susceptible, it doesn't mean Anonymous by Tomahawk is any less innovative or amazing. It probably halts your ability to give it credit.
I think Coldplay are dull, derivitive bs. That is probably due to the fact that there are many bands here that have their sound. In America they are far more adored because it's different.
Yes, and the point being? If it was a device used in popular music as much as pitch correction is used on an Evanescence record, I'd hear you, but to say it's not worthy of note because another guy did it is quite silly to me.
That wasn't my point. My point was that you seem to favour the extremely objective or the extremely subjective. Either technique with no substance in MY opinion, or music that I just don't tend to agree with, which is fine. It's the way of the world.
I was pretty sure you were singing Opeth's praises a while back, though the criticism of Mikael Akerfeldt's songwriting prowess is odd to me. To each their own.
They're willing, yes. Lots of bands are, but Tool are able. It's precisely why their rhythm section is praised by greats respectively. Danny Carey is one of the most acclaimed drummers by people who matter, like Lenny White. Justin Chancellor's work has dumbfounded many professionals and bass-specialist journalist magazines, especially on Aenima.
Of course, it should always be music first, but that was not what we were discussing.
I would give you the deeds to the house in which I live if you could prove that you had local drummers and bassists better than that of Tool's. I am so sure that this is bs that I'll do it no further justice.
I don't remember saying that Tool didn't have something extra. U2 is someone I would say also that. Britney Spears is not because she does not have any fans that put serious thought into music imo.
I think you only think that because you do not enjoy their music.
So you are suggesting that Tomahawk was innovative for bringing it to a bigger audience? I would disagree. Every musical movement has it creators, its pioneers and its perfecter (sometimes all the same band). I'd be willing to give Tomahawk credit for the latter two and also for having the guts and initiative to try it, but I reserve creativity kudos for those that did it first.
I don't know, I wouldn't say Coldplay is really unique in North America because we are highly exposed to Britpop stuff and there are huge followings of Anglophiles over here as I am sure you are aware.
That was simply an answer to your question of who is doing it. More important to my point is that fibonacci sequence is used a lot in popular music. Mostly unconsciously, but more than once consciously and it was very popular in classical music for while, but I do not count the innovations of classical music against popular music.
Not really, I can go either way, but I also go in between and I see no problem with that.
I'd have to explain my interest in Opeth for you to understand. I think they right some of most brilliant passages of modern music which is what I listen for, but I find that their songs lack unity and conciseness. The other thing I like about Opeth is that Akerfeldt has one of the top three growls in death metal combined with a strong clean voice, but I feel he misuses his clean voice a lot. I feel that he would have a very strong asset if he also used his voice somewhere between the two. Opeth is a band I take a lot of influence from, while constantly being frustrated.
I would suggest the opposite. There are a lot of capable musicians who do not use progressive or complex techniques and song structures because they do not want to. Tool uses them effectively. Carey is highly acclaimed because he combines technical skill with interesting drum work, but there are many that can outdo him technically. There are dozens if not hundreds of metal drummers that can blast beat at 300bpm flawlessly and consistently. Carey is not that type of drummer. How Justin Chancellor's bass playing is dumbfounding is beyond me. He's good and is probably their best live member, but I don't think he's mind blowing.
I wouldn't hold you to this, but I could prove it. I'll I have to do is wait for Skepsis to record their hardest song. It features time signature shifts between 17/16, 3/16 and 15/16 with tempo shifts ranging between 80 and 225. The bass player plays a six string bass with two handed tapping and jazz slap technique while one guitarist harmonizes the bass player's tapping on the 9th with his 7 string tuned to drop A while the other guitarist plays non stop sweep arpeggios on his 6 string tuned to D. The whole thing is in D diminished. This destroys anything Tool has done technically and they are only 19. I have seen this live and they can execute it nearly flawlessly. So if they do record this anytime soon I shall send it to you.
I don't think it's bad, I just dislike it. The way their songs are structured seem designed to show off their ability.
Tomahawk are innovative for doing it in a different way, and being one of the very few bands capable of pulling it off.
My point isn't giving credit for doing things first or only, but considering the amount of bands that don't do that, and the amount of bands and artists who simply cannot, I feel Tool aren't really getting credit they deserve, and are often underrated as a result of idiots.
Neither do I.
Why do you feel he misuses his voice? I'm just curious, since that was an understandable answer even if I disagree.
He is one of the best bassists in the world in my opinion, and many journalistic opinions. Technically he is rated by many bassists.
I wasn't saying Danny Carey has no technical superiors. I was saying he's way above "above average".
At times I would agree, though I think that applies to most progressive bands and is an unfair generalization.
I wouldn't say they are one of the few capable of pulling it off, but they are one of the few with the guts to try something like that. However, Patton has a very strong cult following and is very popular in general. That gives him and a great advantage of not having to worry about flopping. A lot of young bands get shut down because they don't immediately find a market.
What credit to you feel they deserve?
Using a recent Opeth as an example, take Ghost of Perdition off of Ghost Reveries. The transition at 2:30 is just terrible. The rigid and he goes from powerful gutturals to a very soft and airy clean voice. Now some might argue that it creates powerful contrast, but I see that as sloppy songwriting. There is no blending between the parts and vocal contrast is just annoying imo. That said, I think the two parts are both very good. Staying with the same song, he uses a different clean voice at 4:25 and yet another at 6:00. I wish that he'd use those clean voices as a transition tool and more frequently because they have more power and would fit parts together better.
I fully agree that he is a quality bass player I just don't feel that he is doing anything more than should be expected of a bass player in that band considering how he is one of their primary melodic options.
Only in riffing imo. This technical capabilities aren't that spectacular to me. Perhaps that is because I am used to progressive music, but I don't see him as anything more than good technically. I do feel is very tasteful.
I'd say Tool's fans offer them more security. I've not seen any fans devoted to Patton's work who are idiots, not saying there aren't any. It just happens that everyone seems to enjoy what he does, where as I have seen Tool "fans" praise something they dislike.
Due credit as musicians, which I feel you aren't giving them.
I suppose it'd be sloppy if they did that because they can't transition, but they can, which is why I feel it's more intended as powerful, but to each their own.
But there are people more technically capable on drums who give him way more credit than you, so how can you say it's not more than good, when others who know better, do?
KMC Community Forums
Jan 16th, 2008 02:39 AM
