In borrowing so heavily from Third Eye, I see this song as a second rate copy of the fantastic original. The fact that so many of the themes are rehashed here makes it all the worse in its mockery.

Not too mention how repetitive, full of filler, abrasive and tediously overblown it is.

Horrible.

It is quite repetitive, it is full of filler, abrasive and tediously overblown but I wouldn't say it's the worse Tool song ever written.

Those points combined with the fact that it falls so short in its emulation of Third Eye make it the worse Tool song.

Just because it falls short of Third Eye doesn't make it their worst song but it's certainly one of my least favourites... Along with a lot of stuff from 10k Days. And to think Tool think this is their best work yet :/

I think maybe you're not quite getting me. I'm not saying that all songs should be rated on how they compare with Third Eye, only the ones that blatantly rip it off.

I think it's called promotion. It would be sales suicide to come out and say, 'this album isn't as good as our last one'. I remember seeing an interview with James Hetfield a few years back and when he was asked what he thought was the best riff he'd ever written he said the intro riff to St. Anger. I thought to myself at the time, 'NO IT'S FUCKING NOT', but it would be plain stupid to say anything else.

Yeah, I suppose no one would ever confess to that. I get a little bored when I hear this song live but I get more bored when Wings for Marie comes on. There's only like, one good part to that song. What things in particular make you associate Third Eye with Rosetta?

Other than lyrical theme, which is really no big deal that two songs deal with the same subject matter, a lot of the music, particularly the guitar riffs, sound like they have been lifted straight out of Third Eye. People say, 'they're revisiting old themes and making connections and blah blah bullshit'. I say they ran out of ideas and resorted to ripping themselves off and did a pretty fucking horrible job of it.

It happens to quite a lot of fucking bands, though. How many times has a band that has been around for quite a long time released a new albums that is mostly recycled bullshit?
This track doesn't compair to Third Eye at all. Especially the 3/4 over 4/4 ending on Third Eye is awesome. But I think it's safe to say that the longer a band has been around the less original their sound is and the more they struggle to re-associate with previous masterpieces.

It's also more than twice as long as it needs to be.

I get the feeling on a number of occasions whilst listening to that album that certain song sections have been extended merely for the sake of making the songs longer.

In some cases I don't particularly care. As far as I'm concerned Tool have quite a few tracks that I would listen to if they were obscurely long because they rock so much. Maybe as far as their concerned all their tracks rock!

It is a good point, though. I've got a few friends who claim that the only reason they find it difficult to get into to Tool is because of the track lengths. I suppose in some cases they could surely afford to reduce the length of them. But keep in mind they want to be anti-publicity and make songs that are not TV and Radio friendly (or so it would seem).

I don't care how long songs are when they're good but Rosetta Stoned seems to last for fucking ever. The Wings tracks have got at least five minutes of obvious filler. Even the filler, Lost Keys, drags on for far too long. The beginning of Intension, parts of the tacked together mush that is Jambi, the rubbish at the end of the CD.

Don't cut the songs down because they're long (I love longer songs), but cut the fat and you lose at least twenty minutes and you have a 6 track album. A solid offering after five years...

If they cut out all the filler in this album it would be difficult to concider it "Progressive Rock", wouldn't it?

"A solid offering after five years..."

They werent on it for 5 years they were touring lateralus through fall 02, and maynard has apc, puscifer and what not. I think I remember in an interview they said they worked the ins and outs for about a year or something and were recording for 5 months. I might be wrong. Appreciate it for what the song is ok, it is what is, its the way they wanted it, they had plenty of time to think it over, and if you dont like it no one is holding a fucking gun to your head making you listen to it.

I'd prefer to hold a gun to your head.

Since when is repetition a bad thing in music? Ever heard of a song called Reflection? As for borrowing from Third Eye, it just makes sense they sound similar, but still (in my opinion) different. Third Eye and Rosetta Stoned are the "do's" and "don'ts" of psychadelic usage. Rosetta is the evil twin if you will.

Not sure what else to say, this might be my favorite off the album (besides Lost Keys) so it's hard for me to understand where you're coming from.

This thread would've worked better as a circle-jerk PM session between toolloot and Utumno1, who happen to have two of the dumbest names in the history of forums.