|
Post by Halo on Feb 15, 2005 12:29:35 GMT -5
"Take "3 Libras" for instance. I was floored when hearing Maynard on Amotion describe what it was really about." Wasn't that something?! My interpretation of 3 Libras was soooo off it's not funny. But who could have ever thought he had known all these parasitic people who had a birthday around the same time? It's weird because I kind of liked my interpretation of the song better and hearing Maynard's interpretation kind of spoiled the song a little bit for me. I know that must sound obtuse coming from me considering Maynard's the one who wrote the song. It's just that sometimes I like it when the artist doesn't discuss the meaning of the song for that very reason - so you can interpret it however you like. A similar thing happened with the interpretation of Judith on Amotion. I mean I totally knew what the song was about but when Maynard started misquoting the Bible and incorrectly translated the meaning of Yahweh/Jehovah - it made me cringe. No offense but I wish I could just call him up and discuss it with him (yeah right - keep dreaming). I mean if I stated incorrect information I would want someone to tell me so I didn't keep perpetuating a false thought in my head. Oh well - sorry everyone - I wasn't trying to open up the whole can of worms known as religion. The Yahweh/Jehovah translation had me going for awhile. Until I researched it. I was very sad to find out it was wrong. I still like his interpretation of it though. Even if I don’t believe there is a “god”, I think it is a lovely sentiment. I guess I kind of like to look at it as the Love/Light that is in all of us. (In fact I have this written on my dry erase board on my fridge. Kind of to remind me of the light and love that is in all of us and how we should use it.) "Love/Light=Infinite, Unconditional and Without Judgment"I do wonder though, where Maynard got this. Surely he didn’t just make it up. He had to have found this interpretation somewhere. I want to know where. As far as the bible quote being wrong....well, he did just have Genesis mixed up with John. I’m sure someone by now had to have mentioned it to him that he had this wrong. I like to look at it this way: His intentions were good. Maybe he got a few things mixed up, but he meant well. As far as 3 Libras: Yea, finding out the true meaning of it practically ruined the song for me. But the more I think of it, it makes me laugh. Here is this beautiful, soaring song….and it’s actually written about these nine “parasitic” people and he hoped to get them all arguing over who the three of them were that it was written about. I can just imagine him with this bit of an evil grin as he wrote that song. How can you not love that? (Well, okay I may be just a bit warped because I do.)
|
|
|
Post by moneyisevil on Feb 15, 2005 15:52:41 GMT -5
I'd vote for John Kerry...oh wait i did...
nevermind i'd vote....
(drum roll please))
TOOL
|
|
|
Post by moneyisevil on Feb 15, 2005 15:54:23 GMT -5
oh and about the "3 libras" thing...at first it killed me...but then i stopped caring....i still love it as much, maybe more now...
|
|
|
Post by Halo on Feb 15, 2005 18:16:24 GMT -5
I seem to fluctuate from one band to the other. Yea, I do the same thing. I to had been listening to so much APC with them being in the forefront for so long. But then I listen to Tool and think.....no, couldn't do without that. Then I'm back listening to APC and couldn't stand not to hear more from them. This was a stupid thread. Who the hell started this?
|
|
|
Post by alienation on Feb 15, 2005 18:51:39 GMT -5
LOL
|
|
|
Post by Bastardometer on Feb 21, 2005 20:52:22 GMT -5
The fact that art is subjective makes it so cool and interesting (at least to me) but my choice would be TOOL , no question . When I first saw those guy's ripping it up at Lolla 93 in Los Angeles , I was hooked . ( Went to see my favorite band at the time , Soundgarden , and left with a new one , TOOL) The only reason I got into APC was because of MJK . Sure , APC makes good music , but TOOL , man... , I get goosebumps
|
|
|
Post by masuimimax on Feb 25, 2005 17:21:48 GMT -5
i really wouldnt want to choose because both bands are amazing. but ultimately i would say tool, because i relate to the music better, the music and lyrics are so deep and layered and you just get lost listening to it. apc is very melodic and beautiful, and spritiual but i'd rather see maynard with tool. apc used to be a secret for us tool aficionados, but now the secrets out and theres just as many posers as true fans. so, yeah im going to say tool.
|
|
|
Post by Halo on Feb 25, 2005 18:33:50 GMT -5
apc used to be a secret for us tool aficionados, but now the secrets out and theres just as many posers as true fans. so, yeah im going to say tool. Not sure what you mean here. When was APC ever a "secret"? And I think all bands have their "posers" and their true fans. Even Tool.
|
|
|
Post by masuimimax on Feb 25, 2005 21:02:53 GMT -5
well what i meant by that was no one really knew who apc was like 2 years ago. at first they were called a side project and no one ever expected them to blow up like they did. but yeah they've been called a "superband" in some magazine i read. and i know all bands have posers fans. tool does, i never said they didnt. its just where i live, people who are supposed "fans" try to talk to me about tool and apc and they have no idea what theyre talking about they can only talk to about the singles. i never meant to be offensive (if i was). people where i live are really annoying when it comes to music, its like they've been music deprived all thier lives. i dont know its just weird when i see someone wearing an apc shirt and they have no idea who tool is.
|
|
|
Post by Halo on Feb 25, 2005 22:30:25 GMT -5
No, no, no...you were not offensive at all.
I was just curious what you meant by that. I hope no offense was taken on your part.
I don't know if I agree with you about no one knowing who APC was until two years ago though. Mer de Noms came out 5 years ago and debuted at #4 on the billboard charts (setting a new record for the highest-ever debut entry for a new band). They may not yet have been dubbed a "superband" but I think their popularity goes far beyond 2 years ago.
Also in 2000, remember they toured with NIN which gave them much publicity.
|
|
|
Post by masuimimax on Feb 26, 2005 0:10:51 GMT -5
yeah i know about the nin tour (awesomeness) but i guess i should take what i read with a grain of salt. the whole "superband" thing i read in Hit Parader. i know Mer De Noms debuted very highly but since im really the only one i know being a tool fan i thought i was alone.
|
|
|
Post by Halo on Feb 26, 2005 0:26:30 GMT -5
Well, you're not alone here! But I know how you feel. None of my friends....not one, likes even the same kind of music I do. It's such a drag not having someone to discuss your music with.
|
|
|
Post by pethealer on Feb 26, 2005 16:18:15 GMT -5
"As far as the bible quote being wrong....well, he did just have Genesis mixed up with John. I’m sure someone by now had to have mentioned it to him that he had this wrong. I like to look at it this way: His intentions were good. Maybe he got a few things mixed up, but he meant well."
See that's my point Halo. It's not just mixing up Genesis and John. The book of John focuses on the concept that Jesus Christ is God and He is Light. It also states that Jesus is Yahweh - the same Yahweh in Genesis. Yet Maynard says well there's no need to read any further - you can close the book at that point. Then he says that Christianity was "changed" by people after the Bible was written to make God out to be a guy with a beard who judges people. But what he fails to state is that the original text of the Bible does state that although God is love and light He is also righteous and therefore must judge wickedness. So to make my long winded point finally - if Maynard is going to criticize Christian fundamentalism or even what he thinks Christianity has become then he needs to know what Christian theology reallys says - don't you agree?
I guess I'm being critical of Maynard's exposition because I do agree with Maynard that one should search for truth and study different sources of information and get educated about a subject and then form an opinion. However, I don't think in this case he did a very good job of doing his research.
|
|
|
Post by NeonTool on Feb 26, 2005 17:35:02 GMT -5
Well, both bands will be over someday. It's a sad thought indeed, but it's something that is inevitable of course. I do have a preference for Tool as it is THE band that helped me to define myself as an individual. On the other hand APC is a more melodic, vocal-based band, and it's not so dependant on instrumentation like Tool. But I really don't care what band ends their cycle first, because all of their albums, songs, videos, and all the memories and feelings that have arisen in me throughout all these years will remain with me until the end of my life. Just that. We just have to look back and see the great work both bands have done and congratulate not only them, but ourselves for being smart enough to understand that what's behind these bands is pure energy ("condensed to a slow vibration", sorry, just remembered this lol) and not "angst rock" like most people think. That's all there is to it.
|
|
|
Post by Halo on Feb 26, 2005 17:55:20 GMT -5
See that's my point Halo. It's not just mixing up Genesis and John. The book of John focuses on the concept that Jesus Christ is God and He is Light. It also states that Jesus is Yahweh - the same Yahweh in Genesis. Yet Maynard says well there's no need to read any further - you can close the book at that point. Then he says that Christianity was "changed" by people after the Bible was written to make God out to be a guy with a beard who judges people. But what he fails to state is that the original text of the Bible does state that although God is love and light He is also righteous and therefore must judge wickedness. So to make my long winded point finally - if Maynard is going to criticize Christian fundamentalism or even what he thinks Christianity has become then he needs to know what Christian theology reallys says - don't you agree? I guess I'm being critical of Maynard's exposition because I do agree with Maynard that one should search for truth and study different sources of information and get educated about a subject and then form an opinion. However, I don't think in this case he did a very good job of doing his research. Well, I'm not so sure that either of us really understand what Maynard is saying. But, what I interpretted Maynard as saying is that after knowing God is Light and Love you don't need to go any further. That's all you need to know. The rest is just "stories" that people wrote. When he says that you can close the book after reading that, I think he is saying that if God is light and love and that "light/love=unconditional, infinite and without judgement.", there is nothing more (in his opinion) that matters. God is love and light, end of story. I don't think Maynard is saying that Christians changed things after the bible was written. I think he is saying that the people that wrote the bible twisted things, changed things to make this "God" in to someone that judges, someone you should fear. But I do believe that he believes also that yes, christians have overlooked the most important thing: God is light and love. They have to go further and make God out to be one that is feared. If God is light and love....what is there to fear? I do agree that he has facts wrong. And yes, I do cringe when I hear him say Genesis 1:1...... But I also think this is just Maynard's interpretations, Maynard's opinions and how he views God and Light and Love. That there should be no ifs and or buts after that. It's simple. It's love. I understand that this probably really upsets a lot of christians, but I also think it's one man's opinion and he has a right to it. But again, in order for him to state his opinions on this, yes, I do believe he needs to get a few facts straight. He needs to state that these are his opinions, his intrepretatins and are not facts. But one can also argue that, is the bible really fact?
|
|