Concert review: Tool

A few minutes before Tool came on, I turned to my wife and said "After tonight, Alice in Chains will be the only band I've really wanted to see but never have/will never be able to (it's not really AIC unless Layne Staley is out front wailing)." I suppose I should include in that Black Sabbath since it seems that, to a metal fan that is the equivalent of a Muslim's requirement to make at least one trip in his/her lifetime to Mecca. But that's another story.

Then, they strode up onto the stage; singer Maynard James Keenan, bassist Justin Chancellor, guitarist Adam Jones and drummer Danny Carey, who shamelessly pandered to the crowd by wearing a Tim Duncan jersey. This fan developed a nervous feeling seeing them walk up on stage to stand next to one another. 'Two postponements is bad enough, but not a third not announced until the arena is full!' Maynard took the mic, said a few indecipherables and ended with "We have good news and bad news." 'Great!' I thought. "The good news is there is no bad news." Ha! And with that, they ripped into "Jambi", the 2nd track on their latest album "10,000 Days". Of the 3 1/2 conventional songs (something that always needs pointing out with a Tool record), that one is probably my favorite, and it's definitely the one that whips my 4 and 2 year-old girls into a frenzy.

One of the best things about the show was the stage set-up. The floor itself appeared, from the cheap seats, to be white or off-white tile or porcelain. It was as if they were performing on a bathroom floor. As a backdrop, they had 4 screens side-by-side. Probably the coolest thing was where each member was stationed. You had Jones, creator of most of their unique music videos, and Chancellor, who seemed to remind me of the late Cliff Burton, standing at the front corners. Kennan and Carey were up a step in the back middle. That set-up, plus the visuals that were passing on the screens and the stage (ahh, that's why the such clean, white floor), reaffirmed Tool as the most unique rock group today. I am trying to realize, however, that that might also explain the course of the concert.

After mowing through "Jambi", they proceeded to tackle "Aenima"s "Stinkfist" and "46 & 2" (not one of my favorite Tool songs, but I sounded good live) and "Schism", off their 3rd full-length album (does anyone call them "albums" anymore?) "Lateralus". I don't recall the hearing a crowd sing along so loud in such unison to a live show as I did up to that point. Then, they almost put me to sleep. I wake up at 4:30 most weekday mornings to workout and/or run. This Monday morning was no different, although today proved to be. I went into the show thinking there was no way they could take up too much of the concert playing the many non-song tracks from their CDs, particularly the last two discs. I stood (or sat) corrected. They played a couple from each and a few other...ditties. I seriously thought about leaving, and I never, NEVER, ever think that during a show, especially one I/We've been so looking forward to. Then they started up what turned out to be an extended version of the title track to "Lateralus". Another least of my favorites, but not too bad.

And with a "Thank you. Good night.", it was over. That was it. Nothing from their 1st album "Undertow"; no "Sober", no "Prison Sex", no "Intolerance"; nothing. There was no "Aenima". At first I thought it was probably too much to think they might also play from that album either "Eulogy" or "Pushit", two long, unconventional songs. But now, as I describe them that way, coming off as eccentric as they sometimes do, one of those songs could probably have fit into the tone of last night's show. But no.

Walking out and toward the car, my wife looked at me and said "You don't look like you enjoyed the show." My first thought was one of agreement. I even told her that every show we've seen since we've been down here, from System of a Down to Korn's Family Values to even Chevelle was better because I got what I came for, with few song exclusions. Then I started continuing out loud the thoughts I started to have while making a pit stop after the show ended; did that show and playlist just fit in with Tool's persona? Should I just take it for what it was? Then, this morning I had another thought; was that their way to keep their fans coming back for more (even though any band with as large of a following will always attract a full house)? Should I admire them for that?

Maybe after last night I might need to kinda add Tool back to that list with Alice in Chains. Maybe that's what their aim was. Maybe they could care less. And maybe that's why they are who they are and we will go back for second helpings one day. They have to have "Aenima" on some playlist, don't they??

Movie review: Bobby

Lame.

Winning Does Not Require Compromise

"He's been tossing hanging curve balls for two debates."
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/05/remove_ron_paul_from_the_debat.html

The guy...I don't get him. I take a keen interest in Rep. Paul for two reasons: he is a Libertarian and my mom lives in his district. I always tell my mom, who always told me she "votes for the person; not the party" (which, as I go on in life, I'm finding out is a mistake) and doesn't follow politics much, that she has a good congressman. I agree that the federal government should be much, much smaller than it is, and applauded him when he said "let's start with departments themselves" in response to Goler's invitation to improve upon Gov. Thompson's answer on cutting spending. And I also agree with him and libertarians' stance against the ongoing War on Drugs. What a waste of money and infringement on personal liberty! Didn't we learn anything from Prohibition.
But I have not noticed him say anything about that topic, nor should he at a GOP debate! That's one "hanging curve ball" he has held back (thus far, anyway). Why won't he hold the others back? THIS IS A FREAKING GOP DEBATE, RON! If you want to score points, talk about the things libertarians and conservatives agree on, like trade, the budget, personal responsibility, taxes, social security/entitlement reform, campaign-finance reform, etc. Every time I've seen a budget or spending question posed to him (granted, I have not yet made it all the way through the second debate), he always tries to explain in on foreign policy terms. If that's what he believes, fine. He's standing on principle. I admire ANYone, conservative or liberal, who does that. But you're not compromising that by sticking to, or more closely to, conservative/Republican talking points on which you agree. If these are some things you want to change about your party (nominally speaking, anyway), fine, but get elected first and work from the inside.
I would have zero problem whatsoever if a libertarian-leaning (acknowledging your description of him as just a straight-out libertarian) candidate was ever elected. It would at least, in my opinion, pull the country in a better direction. Hell, Rudy is close to that based on his socially liberal views and his professed interest in a flat tax, for example. But Congressman Paul's performances so far, by and large, are unfortunately helping me see the light on why libertarians are seen as somewhat kooky.

Ignorance is Bliss, I guess

I've been thinking lately. You know how many people don't care to talk about politics or governmental actions or the like? I wonder if some people just believe a certain way and don't want to think they might be wrong.

I keep going back to a day when my coworkers and I went out to lunch and the subject of the minimum wage came up. One lady had been talking about it because her daughter just received a promotion and subsequent raise and thought her coworkers were about to receive a raise just because Uncle Sam said so. Another, however, said as much that she didn't think she agreed with me, but didn't want to talk about it. Looking back on it, I wouldn't be surprised if she put her hands over her ears when I said that it contributes to unemployment, especially amongst teens and minorities. This no secret. Yet, she'd probably be ok if the subject never came up again. I had the impression that she didn't want to go in depth about it.

And I'm wondering if I just discovered the reason why.