Talk:10,000 Days

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 10,000 Days article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is part of WikiProject Tool, a group of Wikipedians interested in systematically organizing all the information in Wikipedia related to the band Tool. This project's focus is to centralize the efforts of many Wikipedians to make Wikipedia the best free resource when it comes to information about the subject.
If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Backmasking in "Intension"

Some additions to the article have been regarding the backmasking of "Listen to your father, stay in school," etc. in "Intension." I've listened to the song backwards, and it's absolutely there -- it's not one of those suspicious backmaskings that obviously were not intentional, like Satanic messages in Beatles songs. However, I'm hesitant to allow its mention in the article, because it seems like it's verging on Original Research. I was hoping some other people could chime in so that we have a consensus about what to do with it when anons add it in. Dylan 17:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Until you find a reliable source, it can't go in. But I'm gonna go try it now. Foolish Child 17:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It would be awkward to cite, for sure, but it is definitely there. This isn't the random ramblings of the (usually idiotic) Tool fanbase. King Bee 06:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah it's there. It's just whispered, and it's nothing interpretive. You can absolutely make it out. When you reverse the song, it begins at around 5:50 and ends at around 6:20 (so 0:41 from the normal song to about 1:11). --Silvaran 01:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's there, I added it to the article without reading this, hope no one cares too much. -- xxsquishyxx

Not sure if I was specific enough; I'll get the exact wording later (Kudos to Dylan for noticing this in the first place). I notice in the article it reads, "listen to your mother," but I'm not sure if it says mother or father. Will post results later. --Silvaran 03:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I listened to it again, in reverse, and clarified the writeup in the article; hope everybody's happy :). If we need citations, I've no idea what to do. I can't find a reference on Google and I don't have the webspace to host the kind of evidence such a citation might need, so let's rely on readers to find the evidence themselves :). --Silvaran 03:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone removed it, I added it again. It is now so widely recognized that it is all over Google when searching for the lyrics for "Intension".--Moeburn 14:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I think he says "listen to your mother,your father is right...(%@$#)...stay in school": by Matija —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.133.10.123 (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Viginti Tres Lyrics?

I was wondering..., does this track actually have lyrics? Is it something hidden; is it something only on specific versions, for example only US or something? According to [1] and [2] (probably copied from eachother) there are lyrics. I tried slowing/speeding up and reversing (because I was bored) but with no luck (it's funny that reversing the track doesn't really sound like anything special but also doesn't sound very distorted).

[1] http://lyrc.com.ar/en/tema1en.php?hash=ecc2f8f4840b5c0201473cbe438a2e0a [2] http://www.lyricsmania.com/lyrics/tool_lyrics_1951/10,000_days_lyrics_28301/viginti_tres_lyrics_309720.html

These lyrics are fake and not in the song. It was taken from some old game site. It was up around at least 2004, predating 10000 days a good deal. Couple of sites about it

[1] http://randomnous.iamthecheese.com/id/black/c4.html [2] http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread88890/pg1

[edit] Synchronised songs

Hi guys, I just thought this is something that you might think should be on the album's Wikipedia page. Basically, "Wings for Marie (Part 1)" and "Viginti Tres" are the same length as "10,000 Days (Wings, Part 2)" (11:13). Play them together and they synch up. Go here: [[1]] to read more. Stuart mcmillen 07:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Add it. —Ben FrantzDale 16:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOR, WP:V Foolish Child 16:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Would just like to add this (anecdote, nonetheless), that I've spent several hours timeshifting the songs. I find nothing special about this beyond pure coincidence, and would rather wait for confirmation from the band or publisher before including this in the main article. --Silvaran 03:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
@ Silvaran: Oh dude, you gotta be kidding, coincidence? Yeah, the whole world is a coincidence. --Dexter_prog 24 Nov 2006 (UTC)
But this is REALLY a coincidence. Look at this week's issue of The Onion, they have an interview with Maynard:

AVC: Some people think there are three tracks on 10,000 Days that supposedly form one hidden track that's the key to the whole album. It's as if people want to believe there's going to be some ultimate aesthetic payoff.
MJK: [Laughs.] We can barely decide whether we're going to do a baseball cap or a beanie. You know what I mean? Now, granted, if you subscribe to the whole spiritual, energetic level, when you get into that weird, meditative state… I'm trying to think of the word… Sufis? I don't remember—the whirling dervishes. When you get into that weird state, at some point, your body clicks out, and you have a weird out-of-body experience, and so you can tap into those things unconsciously. So if people are reading into those kind of things that basically had nothing to do with us, that are just us clicking in a moment and being true to that whirling-dervish process of emoting with each other, some of that stuff just might naturally, accidentally come out. But it's not in any way a product of our design.

So unless you're spinning around fast enough to induce hallucinations, there's nothing going on here. BotleySmith 14:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but Maynard has never been exactly honest when it comes to dealing with anything about the band or himself. While I agree after listening to it that the whole thing is nothing more than a coincidence, that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be recognized. Consider the first note in the trivia section of Lateralus about the Fibonacci Sequence and listening to the album in various orders. That is just like this:it's original research and the band refuses to say anything on it, yet that part remains in the article with no discussion on whether it should be removed or not. You can't interpret the rules however you want: either include them both or delete them both. I suggest we put it to a vote then we can end this discussion. Hackstar18 22:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I vote we keep both. Remember when Maynard found Jesus?

I find that in synchronizing the songs you should play Viginti Tres first then Wings For Marie (Part 1), at the same time you are playing 10,000 Day (Wings Part 2).

[edit] Theories About "The Pot"

Anyone else have any theories about who (if any one person) "The Pot" is about? The more I listen to it, the more I think it's directed towards Rush Limbaugh over his Oxycotin scandal. ("Who are you to wave your fatty fingers at me? You must have been out your mind"). So far I haven't found any corroborating theories on this, but even the idea that it could be directed towards Limbaugh brings a smile to my face. Anyone have any other theories on this? - Y2mckay 22:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Generic, not about anyone in particular. Orichalcon 08:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Methinks it concerns the Cheyenne chief Black Kettle, especially since Lipan Conjuring comes right after it. --King Bee 19:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I heard a few people say it actually was Rush Limbaugh. As the rumor goes he said "They must have been high" in regards to A Perfect Circle recording the album Emotive. Rush being the pill popper we all love, makes the comment rather hipocritcal if he actually said it. Be a nice note to add if someone could find a proper citation for it. Hobomaloney

Personally, I just think the song is about hypocricy. It's been claimed many times and apparently by Maynard James Keenan himself. Who who's the hypocrite? Hm... YesMapRadio

[edit] Professional Reviews

Does anyone else think that there's far too many professional reviews on this page. Is it really neccessary to have more there than just the usual reviews (Rolling Stone, AMG, etc.). I get the impression also that some of them aren't really professional. hellboy 01:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Music Video

I was at the toolband site and on the left arm like thing by the tv I found a hidden link talking about filming the Rosetta Stoned video outside area 51, If anyone can confirm this, i cant figure how to get back.Gothmog1114 21:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The August Newsletter is all about the filming of the Rosetta Stoned stuff in Area 51. Perhaps you went there by mistake. hellboy 23:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] foolishness

two pieces of foolishness have no place in the wiki.

"Another fan noted that jambi is also Finnish for iamb, a metrical foot where an unstressed syllable is followed by a stressed one, and that iambic meter is used in the lyrics of the song."

that is idiotic, and highly characteristic of tool fans. BLAIR's response in the newsletter clearly RIDICULES the idea that the finnish connection was intentional. in English there are two simple foot schemes (among others): IAMBIC and TROCHAIC. there are millions of poems and lyrics that use an iambic form. it's probably the most common foot scheme in English.

the morse code connection is even more idiotic. music uses rhythms. morse code is an alphabetic code using short and long blips. if you wanted to you could find all kinds of ridiculous "write-outs" by taking a morse code pattern from the rhythmics of any song ever recorded. you have to stop and ask yourself whether the phrase "3, 2, 1" could have any possible meaning whatsoever. the answer of course is no.

it's laughable that people find the need to reduce everything tool does to some pointless, incoherent, ridiculous puzzle or cipher. is the music somehow not good enough in its own right? you could find the exact same useless "messages" and connections IN ANY SONG EVER performed, if you're intent on finding one. yes there's probably a such thing in the world as a meaningful coincidence, or a productive coincidence, but the encoded message nonsense is garbage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.119.132.160 (talk • contribs) 24 January 2007.

[edit] Jambi does not use iambic meter.

I'm really tired of coming here and see that someone has edited the 10,000 Days page to say that Jambi uses iambic meter. It does not. If you, for whatever reason, think that it does, then please provide examples from the lyrics where iambic meter is used. If you can't, then do not alter the article to say that it does. Mrmcpheezy 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, if you are going to call someone ignorant, you need to site examples or sources. In other words, no matter how sick and tired you are of others' edits, you don't have the right to vandalise. J-Dog 04:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't them saying that a song uses iambic meter when it does not count as an example of their ignorance? I sure think so. Mrmcpheezy 18:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
That may be, but surely it would be better to simply remove the false information, than to insert insults? If we all added insults every time something was wrong on Wikipedia, it would be unsuable. Oli Filth 21:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mrmcpheezy, the song clearly does not use iambic meter, at least I couldn't find any of this meter in Maynard's singing. --Dexter_prog (talk • contribs • count) @ 18:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to delete the mention of iambs being used in the song and leave the fact that the title does mean iamb in Finnish.Mrmcpheezy 21:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Apparently the database is closed, so I can't save my edit, but this is what it should say: " In addition, Jambi is Finnish for iamb, a metrical foot where an unstressed syllable is followed by a stressed one." And that's it.Mrmcpheezy 21:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ten months on Wiki is long enough... you're going home.

I think that not only is it not fair that articles for non-singles songs can't be created for tracks on 10,000 Days, but it also hinders the quality of Wikipedia as a whole. A while ago I created a pretty good starting article for Right in Two, which has since been turned into a redirect. Since many other artists, such as The Beatles, Nirvana, and the Red Hot Chilli Peppers have articles on nearly every song they've ever written, why not Tool? I feel that articles should be created for EVERY Tool song (I'm planning to complete "Pushit", "Eulogy", "10,000 Days (Wings Pt 2)", "Right in Two", and "Rosetta Stoned" soon). After all, the goal of Wikipedia is to provide comprehensive information on topics, so why not? I think they're notable enough. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 17:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it back to a redirect. There is absolutely nothing notable about the song Right in Two. –King Bee (T • C) 14:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It is notable. Quit denying the notability of Tool. Kthx. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 15:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Provide evidence as to why the song is notable, and please remain civil. It's simply a song off of an album by Tool. I'm not denying the notability of Tool, I'm denying the notability of the particular song you mentioned.
Do you really thing there should be a page for every Tool song? Even Ceasaro Summability? Negative Ions? L.A.M.C.? These songs are not notable enough to have their own pages. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. –King Bee (T • C) 15:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Yes, I do. A song is a song, and as far as I'm concerned, those songs deserve an article as much as Stinkfist and Schism do. We have an article on Die Eier von Satan, mind you, and nobody has questioned its notability yet.
I didn't know an article for that song existed; that is a prime example of a non-notable song. It is a filler track in the middle of an album. I will either nominate it for speedy deletion or regular deletion as soon as I get a chance.–King Bee (T • C) 18:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It is notable, however. It's a good, factual article on a Tool song. And the song has 280+ comments on SongMeanings, more than Stinkfist, Schism, Parabola, Forty Six & 2, Jambi, Prison Sex, Sober, The Grudge, H., Hooker with a Penis, and Hush, all of which have articles here. I'm not saying that SongMeanings should be the be all end all of this debate (that would be silly) but it's a good example that there is much interest in the song by fans. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Can an explination please be given on who decides what is not notable and what is? I think that there has been a precedent set by other articles where and entire article has been dedicated to one song. The user above that argues for an individual song having its own article in here is a good one. It's unfair to justify articles for certain songs while denying articles for others. There's certainly no harm in it as long as the article remains unbiased. Furthermore, if you prohibit one song from having an article dedicated to it by saying that it is "not notable," then you must go back and do the same to every single song in the entire database. Bottom line, my argument is that precednt has been set and therefore should be followed. If it's good enough for the Supreme Court, it's certainly good enough for Wikipedia. Let's try to be editors and contributors instead of being judge, jury and executioner. J-Dog 16:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Every page I've seen for non-single Tool songs has contained nothing but unsourced information. If these articles are going to contain anything of note at all, besides "Right In Two is a song off of Tool's 2006 album 10,000 Days," then we had better find some sources for that information. I don't want to be a stickler here, but I don't want a bunch of song stubs on Wikipedia for no reason whatsoever.
While we all might love Tool here, to compare them in popularity to The Beatles or Nirvana is kind of ludicrous; and I don't even like either of those two bands I just mentioned. –King Bee (T • C) 16:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll add to my earlier point: Go look up The Beatles. (Not comparing Tool to The Beatles, just using an example) Sgt. Pepper's for example. EVERY SINGLE song has its own article. Was every single song on that record released as a single? Not even close. Using the argument of "if it's not a single then it's not notable" is bogus. And can someone explain to me what the harm is for any song by any artist having it's own article? I mean seriously, why is it an issue? As long as it's written properly and it adheres to Wiki's guidlines, let it be. (No Beatles pun intended!) Maybe I feel like finding out some added details about a particular song? But then I can't, because someone said that song wasn't notable enough. That's garbage. If a song is notable to an individual, then it's notable. You can't scutinize art the same way you can historical events or people etc. Do the research, get the facts, cite 'em, include 'em, and create the article. That's it. Enough censorship nonsensical B.S. J-Dog 19:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read this before creating song pages again. Everything added to the "Right in Two" article so far has been original research. Hypothetically, if a verifiable thesis on the song's lyrics got published somewhere, then the song would deserve a page of its own. Until that time, a "Right in Two" article serves no purpose beyond repeating what should be covered by the 10,000 Days article. Ditto for other less-notable songs, including (IMO) "Rosetta Stoned", which shouldn't exist on separate pages. BotleySmith 23:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't have said it better myself. –King Bee (T • C) 01:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Does that go for every song that already has its own article on Wikipedia? I expect to see the same argument across the board. My argument of precedent being set and then followed applies both ways. Either let every song have its own article (which is the way it is for many songs), or set a strict standard and follow it to the letter. Seems to me that if an artist is viewed as "popular" or "important" that's enough to have every song recieve an article. I'm looking for some consistancy here. J-Dog 14:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it goes for every song here. I will go through and AfD every Tool song that isn't notable, but you have to start somewhere. –King Bee (T • C) 14:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I wasn't talking about every Tool song, I was talking about EVERY song on Wikipedia. Follow Wiki guidelines, not Tool guidelines. And I'll ask again because I still haven't gotten an answer: Who decides what's notable and what isn't? And how can that be decided as it pertains to art? Maybe I believe it's notable, and you don't. Who's to say one is right over the other? Does that mean I get to go through all the song articles on Wikipedia and judge which ones stay and which ones go based on what I say is notable? This whole thing is absolutely ridiculous. Again, you can't judge art as notable or not. And if you try, then I guess Wikipedia is different than the span of entire human history. J-Dog 21:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I misunderstood you. You'd probably be better off arguing this point here, since that's the topic of discussion right now. And no, you don't get to go around and decree what you think is notable, as you know full well that that is not the way Wikipedia works.
As for the topic of notability, I may find it notable that my good friend's wife is about to have her first child; that doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. There are standards, decided upon by the community here at Wikipedia. WP:NOTE helps a lot in most areas. –King Bee (T • C) 22:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I give up here. I totally disagree with the guidelines as they pertain to music articles. With that being said, I don't plan to run around and delete articles based on my opinion, nor did I ever plan to do so. I'll just say this, and then I'll leave it at that: I feel that there is no way that certain artisits are allowed to have every single song articled while other artists' songs are deemed not notable. A precedent has been set, and now it is not being followed, and that is shameful. And I believe that there is alot of closemindedness happening here, and that is not only shameful, but ridiculous. Good luck to all... J-Dog 01:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Certain artists have had their entire body of work scrutinized countless times in hundreds of print articles, books, etc. and Tool has not - the distinction is pretty clear to me. There is nothing "shameful" about following a larger precedent of critical review rather than blazing our own trail without any reference to prior work. Forgive me, but I happen to think that an attempt to list - on an encyclopedia, no less - fans' interpretations of each and every song by Tool is far more ridiculous than limiting the scope of the project to more relevant, attributable sources. BotleySmith 01:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, but if we take King Bee's assumption to be correct, then shouldn't we delete "Die Eier von Satan" and create "Eulogy" (one of the band's most popular songs and "10,000 Days (Wings Pt 2)" (title track). I'll be willing to settle for that. Look, 10,000 Days has sold pretty well, so it's pretty notable. The reason that so many articles contain original research is because some Tool fans happen to be boneheads (like the ones that sing along at concerts) and will add a bunch of opinions and the like. The Rosetta Stoned article is all fact as far as I'm concerned. The trivia section is fact. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 18:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's all "fact". Wikipedia doesn't care about what is true, Wikipedia cares about what can be cited. If you can't cite the things in the Rosetta Stoned article, then Wikipedia treats them as original research and deals with them as such. Is "Eulogy" one of the most popular songs? How do you know? Is there a source saying it is? Why should the title track of an album be given its own page? Just because it shares its title with the record? –King Bee (T • C) 18:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm hella with king bee on this. If you can't find an article with information about a song to use as a source, then what is the purpose of starting a page for that song? People can go to toolnavy if they want to discuss the songs. That is not the purpose of wikipedia. Also, the fact that other bands have pages made for so many of their songs is not a reason for still more pages to made. Perhaps someone should look into getting rid of some of those. Mrmcpheezy 21:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OR

So, I had to add a original reasearch tag to the article, because I'm sick of Tool fans adding all of these claims about the backmasking, the wine, or anything else of that nature. We need to cite our sources here. So, I suggest we start finding sources, or start deleting things. Thanks. –King Bee (τ • γ) 17:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I checked, and this one really is there. Reverse the track (using Audacity or somesuch), and then jump to about 5:51 (in reversed time, so around 1:30 in forward time). Google returns loads of results [2]; we just need to find a good reference. Oli Filth 00:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, for things like this, what counts as a good reference? It's not like someone's going to write a peer-reviewed paper on the matter, and it's not going to go in the Encyclopedia Britannica. I'm sure the band themselves will have nothing to say about it either. Oli Filth 00:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware that the Intension business is true (I tried it myself as well). However, Wikipedia isn't concerned with facts, it's concerned with what is verifiable information from a reliable source. I would suppose that a reputable tool fan page (like this one) would probably suffice for a source on such information. Over at the Nine Inch Nails page, we use this fan news site as a reliable source like crazy. –King Bee (τ • γ) 04:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I stumbled across this page, and I haven't even heard the album, but I think I could weigh in on the discussion, as I've read the rules on original research. I think you could mention the backmasking in the song while citing the song itself as a reference. I've seen this done in academic articles all the time. The rules for OR state that:

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following: It introduces a new theory or method of solution; It introduces original ideas; It defines new terms; It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source

Citing the mere existance of something does not present a new theory, method, or solution. It does not introduce an original idea, it just tells you that something is there. It would no more present an original idea than stating that "this album has music on it" would be stating an original idea. It does not define new terms. It does not re-define preexisting terms. It doesn't introduce an argument. It does not present an analysis of the established facts. It is just stating the fact, without any kind of interpretation beyond just saying "it's there." It doesn't introduce any neologisms. Really, all you're doing is stating that there is something there. The best way to cite it would be to give the track time when the track is playing forward, not backward, and cite the album as your source. This isn't original research, any more than stating that "There is a picture of Bob Dylan on the cover of Blonde on Blonde" is original research.

Now, if there is another source, you should cite it, even if it isn't peer reviewed (which it won't be.) That will simplify everything. Dlmccaslin 20:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sample in "Lost Keys"

Nothing in this article about what or where that sample of dialogue in "Lost Keys" comes from? DJRaveN4x 11:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure it is a sample and nothing recorded by the band for the album? Because Rosetta Stoned is, like, the patient answering to the doctor in Lost Keys.Revan ltrl 19:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
If that be the case, shouldn't it be noted at least who the voices belong to? I'm pretty sure it's from House (TV series) because the doctor sounds an awful lot like Chase...DJRaveN4x 03:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
According to http://www.butcherband.com/butcher/bio.php (the website of Butcher, a band Blair keeps posting about), Camella Grace (Adam Jones' wife) is the voice of the nurse. I've added it to the main page but I'm not sure how to add references yet - if somebody else can do that I'd greatly appreciate it. Nith Sahor 20:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3D Modeling

The article said that Ray Zone was credited for the 3D modeling found in the album art. This is not true. The computer-generated 3D modeling was created by (and credited to) Bayard Baudoin and Meats Meier. Ray Zone converted this CGI (as well as the photographs) to stereographic images viewable through the lenses provided. He did not model any of the 3D figures. I removed this statement from the article. Unless you can prove otherwise, please refrain from undoing this change, Oli Filth. 67.70.97.31 18:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, on a second look, the CD credits are ambiguous, as no-one is credited for "3D modelling". Oli Filth 18:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vicarious Video

It says that the video has not been released. I have seen the video, I know it HAS been released. someone needs to fix that.

No, it hasn't. The only videos currently available are imitators made by fans. Also, sign your comments. DJRaveN4x 18:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
It was released a while ago. -- ...RuineЯ|Chat... 01:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sitar?

Where does Adam Jones use a sitar? Seems like a load of nonsense to me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.88 (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)