Has Tool made too many albums?

[bob]

Considering Adam couldn't be arsed churning out a 10 minute music video , unless of course Gibson pay him enough money, I don't think you've got to much to worry about

kinda true, that guy lost touch sometime ago it seems. Remember, Vicarious was done all CGI. He wasnt as invovled as the videos he use to make up till 2001. i think he just had enough of that/wasnt hungry anymore. Stop Animation takes a long time. i dont need a Tool version of ''the wall'' or something along those lines either. dont we get that at the live shows anyway ?

[xZ1mM3r]

i think that FI was a huge lift, and burden for them to make due to a multitude of reasons. But now that they have fulfilled their record contract and are more free to release music in whatever capacity they want, which would include likely more of the profits if they choose to stay independent, then i could see that being a catalyst for them to WANT to release more material.

I think covid have fucked their progress towards more music simply because they arent playing/jamming/touring together as much (if any) which is limiting creativity and drive i would assume. I think covid might have affected maynard, but i doubt it is limiting his singing ability long term.

[novaconda]

Related to Adam being such a perfectionist, I'd think that the singles/ep idea would cater to new music coming out sooner. Based on Maynard not being married to the idea of having to produce an album that fits on a cd and how FI didn't fit completely on one disc, I would love to see them even drop a small 3-song collection with it's own theme.

[bob]

yep, i totally think an E.P or even less will come out and that might be it for new music. after that, for all the reasons above, sell out as much as they can! ha

[tys0n]

Speaking about a live concert release a little birdie has told me that the real reason the band has never released one was because certain lighting effects used during their live shows while looking amazing live, once transferred to tape/film it looked atrocious like a grimy filter was over the whole thing so they had to scrap years and years of live footage.

I mean I'm not blaming anyone for this but geez, imagine being that guy.

[Busty McCracken]

Sounds 100% legit. , this is why ya should never put the junior staff member in charge of lighting.

[junior]

Speaking about a live concert release a little birdie has told me that the real reason the band has never released one was because certain lighting effects used during their live shows while looking amazing live, once transferred to tape/film it looked atrocious like a grimy filter was over the whole thing so they had to scrap years and years of live footage.

I mean I'm not blaming anyone for this but geez, imagine being that guy.

Sounds 100% legit. , this is why ya should never put the junior staff member in charge of lighting.

Yeah. Not taking that bait.

However, logic would dictate a certain truth to that.
Most "professionally shot" concert films have had minor to major tweaks done to the lighting for the shoot so it plays to the camera rather than the live audience, and some shows are lit that way from the start if they incorporate cameras into the regular show (faces on video screens and whatnot), or know they are going to make a film at some point. We have only ever lit to the eye. Even the multi-camera shoot from 2002 had no changes to accommodate cameras.

[ms2r]

However, logic would dictate a certain truth to that.
Most "professionally shot" concert films have had minor to major tweaks done to the lighting for the shoot so it plays to the camera rather than the live audience, and some shows are lit that way from the start if they incorporate cameras into the regular show (faces on video screens and whatnot), or know they are going to make a film at some point. We have only ever lit to the eye. Even the multi-camera shoot from 2002 had no changes to accommodate cameras.

Then I guess the audience should be happy with this because concert films do not have the optimal 'audience" lightning. Cool. Thanks.

[Busty McCracken]

Speaking about a live concert release a little birdie has told me that the real reason the band has never released one was because certain lighting effects used during their live shows while looking amazing live, once transferred to tape/film it looked atrocious like a grimy filter was over the whole thing so they had to scrap years and years of live footage.

I mean I'm not blaming anyone for this but geez, imagine being that guy.

Sounds 100% legit. , this is why ya should never put the junior staff member in charge of lighting.

Yeah. Not taking that bait.

However, logic would dictate a certain truth to that.
Most "professionally shot" concert films have had minor to major tweaks done to the lighting for the shoot so it plays to the camera rather than the live audience, and some shows are lit that way from the start if they incorporate cameras into the regular show (faces on video screens and whatnot), or know they are going to make a film at some point. We have only ever lit to the eye. Even the multi-camera shoot from 2002 had no changes to accommodate cameras.

Haha you know we got nothing but mad respect for ya mate, no one better in the business as far as I'm concerned.

Interesting to know about the process for lighting re shot films. Am glad its always been done for the people in the audience first and foremost. In summary... tool please hurry the fuck up and release a live video recording!

[junior]

Then I guess the audience should be happy with this because concert films do not have the optimal 'audience" lightning. Cool. Thanks.

Yeah. Part of it is usually lighting up the crowd so the home viewer sees all the adoring fans. Depending on how far they take it, it can be subtle, or ruin the mood for the live crowd.
Another common move is to (for lack of a better term) "flatten" the dynamics of the show so the camera gets a more consistent image.
And then there is the added key lighting on the performers, usually going for a more natural look and trying to avoid any artsy-fartsy saturated colours.
A lot of it can come down to the camera crew. There are some who can deal with radical changes in light, and some newer camera sensors are more forgiving of that. There are also some who want everything to look like what they perceive as "perfect" with no room for deviation from what has worked since the 1920's.
It can be done with a mix of all of this stuff. The sweet spot would be somewhere in the middle of all of that.

I guess this has gotten pretty far off-topic at this point.

[Kittaan]

I guess this has gotten pretty far off-topic at this point.

Considering the ridiculous original topic, I see no reason to fret over that. Be fretless.

Ditto, Junior that was very interesting.

I still hold out hope for a live DVD from Tool. This actually seems like the perfect time. No touring, the new album just dropped recently, revenue streams are hobbled… why not stage the ultimate live Tool show and capture it ultra hi-def from every angle. First as a pay per view concert and then as a live Blu Ray?

[bob]

Speaking about a live concert release a little birdie has told me that the real reason the band has never released one was because certain lighting effects used during their live shows while looking amazing live, once transferred to tape/film it looked atrocious like a grimy filter was over the whole thing so they had to scrap years and years of live footage.

I mean I'm not blaming anyone for this but geez, imagine being that guy.

Sounds 100% legit. , this is why ya should never put the junior staff member in charge of lighting.

Yeah. Not taking that bait.

However, logic would dictate a certain truth to that.
Most "professionally shot" concert films have had minor to major tweaks done to the lighting for the shoot so it plays to the camera rather than the live audience, and some shows are lit that way from the start if they incorporate cameras into the regular show (faces on video screens and whatnot), or know they are going to make a film at some point. We have only ever lit to the eye. Even the multi-camera shoot from 2002 had no changes to accommodate cameras.

Haha you know we got nothing but mad respect for ya mate, no one better in the business as far as I'm concerned.

Interesting to know about the process for lighting re shot films. Am glad its always been done for the people in the audience first and foremost. In summary... tool please hurry the fuck up and release a live video recording!

Busty, that doesnt make any sense! Your nice guy act didnt work this time! You said its great the audience always comes first and how great everyone is but then said u want a live dvd asap!. Had Tool done stuff in 02 with the cameras to suit a release, you may have already had a live dvd years ago. ooh geeze! im just playin' with ya brother! but i did think that on the side kinda, haha

[Busty McCracken]

Fucks sake Bob, You hitting the pipe again or something mate? Try keep up. I do want a DVD asap and am more than happy for it to be lit in a way that benefited the audience more than the film. Geesh

[tys0n]

Yeah. Not taking that bait.

However,

My favourite part of this whole exchange, love you Junior

[bob]

Fucks sake Bob, You hitting the pipe again or something mate? Try keep up. I do want a DVD asap and am more than happy for it to be lit in a way that benefited the audience more than the film. Geesh

Theoretically i made sense, totally! u didnt say ASAP but you implied it, baha!

[_peterpwn02]

u know what would be really great, if they would re-record undertow and aenima with Justin and Joe Barresi (i know the former suggestion maybe would be disrespectful to Paul, but only Aenima then), like when Meshuggah re-recorded Nothing (with different instruments tho)

not a remaster but a re-record, (and 10kdays with Bottril, LOL)

[tys0n]

10,000 days with Bottril would be interesting as fuck

[rinkwhopper]

yes, I'm glad someone finally had the frijoles to say it. Every time I turn around there's another The Tool album.

[hellboy]

Would be happy if they just released shit on vinyl ffs

[bob]

prob will wait till more units of the ten diff versions of FI are sold or whatever, bahah. I'm curious to see what comes if they arent with a record company anymore. Knowing them they are prob figuring out the best way to do whatever or if they need another company etc etc. im only speculating but im sure thatss part of whatever plans they have for something next. Im not holding my breathe no matter what of course. i mean seriously, haha

[Calfium Jay]

Look, it's a donkey! And he's wearing a hat!!

A hat!!!!

[Spoonman]

Would be happy if they just released shit on vinyl ffs

Yep! A GOOD sounding "Lateralus" vinyl for example.

[_peterpwn02]

Lateralus is the best CD by far i have ever listened to, its HDCD if i remember correctly idk, but that shit is seriously on the same level as a vinyl recording (i know numbers would defy my statement, bit rate depth yada yada, but subjectively, it feels and sounds amazing, much better then any rips ive heard, vinyl rips included)

[Spoonman]

The CD sounds amazing, yes, but the damn Vinyl is a catastrophe!

[tys0n]

Lateralus is the best CD by far i have ever listened to, its HDCD if i remember correctly idk, but that shit is seriously on the same level as a vinyl recording (i know numbers would defy my statement, bit rate depth yada yada, but subjectively, it feels and sounds amazing, much better then any rips ive heard, vinyl rips included)

This was debunked ages ago, digital > vinyl, it's science.