N/A

[TotoFan77]

This post has been deleted.

[The_Noble_Cause]

I think "underappreciated" is an operative word when describing TOTO.
Luke and Paich and Jeff, despite their contributions inside and outside of the band, are not exactly household names.
The darkened faceless silhouettes featured on the Live in Amsterdam cover was a riff on this.
So too was the purgatory-ish title of "Falling in Between."
I will agree that Bobby Kimball is a very unique talent who never quite left his mark in the world of vocal giants.
But again, I think it's also true of Joe Williams, and so much of TOTO in general.
In a way, they're our little secret.

I'll agree Bobby was criminally underused on FIB.
As others have pointed out, Greg Phillinganes has an adequate voice, but Bobby is an American treasure.
And, as counter-intuitive as this may seem, Bobby sings with more delta blues soul than the brother in the group.

[Brett]

One of the things I always liked most about Toto (like Chicago) was the use of different vocalists across any given album, but I agree that as *THE* lead singer Bobby was often underused. To me the worst culprit for this was the 'Hydra' album - okay, he sings lead on half of the songs (although countless people still think that it's actually Steve Porcaro on one of them), but his second lead vocal on the album is 'Mama' - the 6th track! I like 'Lorraine' but it should never have made it to the album ahead of 'Tale of a Man' - that track would have made a huge difference to the overall feel of the album IMHO.

As to singles though, unfortunately the band had very little say in those, and Bobby's successors fared even worse - the two charting singles from 'Isolation' were both sung by Paich, while Luke handled both hits from 'Fahrenheit'. I will always maintain that had 'Endless' been released as the first single from 'Isolation' and been given the push 'Stranger in Town' received (it got a lot more airplay than it's #30 peak would suggest) the res tof the Toto story would have been very different, particularly regards their US popularity. But I guess we'll never know for sure!

[BlackWall]

Bobby is definitely underrated.. He has a distinctive style to his vocals, and you can tell he pours his guts out for every performance. The energy just can't be found with many performers.

I agree about "Melanie" and "Mindfields". They finally had Bobby back, and they choose "Melanie" as the single?? Wtf. I'm sorry, while "Melanie" isn't a bad Luke ballad, every US single off of "Tambu" and "Kingdom Of Desire" was a Luke ballad(save for "Don't Chain My Heart); with "Mindfields", it was time to liven things up a little. "Cruel", "Mad About You" or "Caught In The Balance" would have been great choices. "Cruel" or "Mad About You" released to A/C radio and Adult Top 40/Top 40, and "Caught In The Balance" released to rock stations. Instead, we got "Melanie", and I don't think we actually got anything else here in the states.

[Ehwmatt]

Bobby is definitely underrated.. He has a distinctive style to his vocals, and you can tell he pours his guts out for every performance. The energy just can't be found with many performers.

I agree about "Melanie" and "Mindfields". They finally had Bobby back, and they choose "Melanie" as the single?? Wtf. I'm sorry, while "Melanie" isn't a bad Luke ballad, every US single off of "Tambu" and "Kingdom Of Desire" was a Luke ballad(save for "Don't Chain My Heart); with "Mindfields", it was time to liven things up a little. "Cruel", "Mad About You" or "Caught In The Balance" would have been great choices. "Cruel" or "Mad About You" released to A/C radio and Adult Top 40/Top 40, and "Caught In The Balance" released to rock stations. Instead, we got "Melanie", and I don't think we actually got anything else here in the states.

At any rate, Mindfields is an INCREDIBLE album. For all the praise FIB received at its release, I still find MF to be the far superiror product. That's no knock on FiB either - it's a good album. But Mindfields's best songs are better and it gives ya more bang for your buck. Cruel, Mad Ab You, and Caught are all songs that could be among my favorite Toto songs, especially the latter two.

[WalrusOct9]

Mindfields needed to be about five songs shorter. Some great stuff, to be sure, but also a few clunkers...if it had been 20 years earlier in the vinyl days, imagine Mindfields paired down to the best 40-45 minutes of music.

I will take as much Luke/Toto music as I can get, but I think part of the reason FIB was so strong was it didn't overstay its welcome, with a solid, consistent 10 songs and a manageable 49 minute running time. I'm not a fan of "less is more" musically, but sometimes having too much music on an LP ruins the overall impact, IMO.

[TotoFan77]

This post has been deleted.

[Ehwmatt]

Mindfields needed to be about five songs shorter. Some great stuff, to be sure, but also a few clunkers...if it had been 20 years earlier in the vinyl days, imagine Mindfields paired down to the best 40-45 minutes of music.

I will take as much Luke/Toto music as I can get, but I think part of the reason FIB was so strong was it didn't overstay its welcome, with a solid, consistent 10 songs and a manageable 49 minute running time. I'm not a fan of "less is more" musically, but sometimes having too much music on an LP ruins the overall impact, IMO.

Well, I dunno. That's debatable as far as FIB goes... for me, Hooked, No End In Sight, and Let It Go are completely disposable. Taint Your World is alright, a little too blatantly Van Halen for me and not a song w/ staying power past the first several listens, where it's a fun arena rocker. That leaves 6 really good songs... not quite enough for me! Simple Life needed to be at least another verse and chorus longer, if not a bridge.

It's interesting, cuz Journey's Arrival is criticized for being "5 songs too long" too... I dunno about exact running times but I'd bet Arrival and Mindfields run similar in length. I just never had a problem with the length of either one... always give me more, especially when my favorite guitar players are involved. Even if there's a few unremarkable ones in there, you can still find nuances to listen to and what not. Plus, law of averages, more songs = more chances for songs to connect to you.

This whole thing is subjective on my part, obviously, eg. if you LOVE FIB, then you presumably love all 10 songs and that's a killer album. But for me personally, it's tough to wow me from top to bottom with an album length under 12 songs (my prog bands with long songs, eg Porc Tree/Dream Theater/Genesis etc and Boston's output notwithstanding). There's just usually gonna be one or two songs that are disposable. Now, 8/10 versus, say 13/15? I'll take the latter. Loverboy's "Just Getting Started" comes to mind as being killer from 1-10...

[Ehwmatt]

I think Toto really made a mistake by having so many other singers besides Bobby on those early albums. Both David and Luke sang WAY too much on those early albums even though Bobby was supposed to be the lead singer. It created a problem for casual listeners too because look at Hydra for example. Hydra had 3 singles, 99, All Us Boys, and St George and the Dragon, each song had a different lead singer. For a casual fan listening on the radio, how on earth would they know that those 3 songs were by the same band? I think it's a major reason why Toto were accused of being faceless and had a lack of identity. David and Luke should have both sang one song on each of those 4 albums and left the rest for Bobby to sing. I think it would have made a big difference.

I've never thought of it that way, but that's an excellent point from a commercial standpoint. I guess I just don't think of it cause I really don't care how much commercial success my favorite bands have/had.

[WalrusOct9]

Well, I dunno. That's debatable as far as FIB goes... for me, Hooked, No End In Sight, and Let It Go are completely disposable. Taint Your World is alright, a little too blatantly Van Halen for me and not a song w/ staying power past the first several listens, where it's a fun arena rocker. That leaves 6 really good songs... not quite enough for me! Simple Life needed to be at least another verse and chorus longer, if not a bridge.

It's interesting, cuz Journey's Arrival is criticized for being "5 songs too long" too... I dunno about exact running times but I'd bet Arrival and Mindfields run similar in length. I just never had a problem with the length of either one... always give me more, especially when my favorite guitar players are involved. Even if there's a few unremarkable ones in there, you can still find nuances to listen to and what not. Plus, law of averages, more songs = more chances for songs to connect to you.

This whole thing is subjective on my part, obviously, eg. if you LOVE FIB, then you presumably love all 10 songs and that's a killer album. But for me personally, it's tough to wow me from top to bottom with an album length under 12 songs (my prog bands with long songs, eg Porc Tree/Dream Theater/Genesis etc and Boston's output notwithstanding). There's just usually gonna be one or two songs that are disposable. Now, 8/10 versus, say 13/15? I'll take the latter. Loverboy's "Just Getting Started" comes to mind as being killer from 1-10...

Yeah, Arrival was too long too....but felt even longer because of the overabundance of ballads. "Hooked" was the only song on FIB I really couldn't get into...I thought "No End In Sight" was one of the best tracks on the album, but that's just me.

It's not really something I thought about as much until the last couple years when I started getting back into vinyl and kind of giving up on the dying CD format. I'd rather have my ass kicked by two 18 minute sides of Leftoverture than the 75 minute overlong Dream Theater albums they've put out this decade.

[Ehwmatt]

Well, I dunno. That's debatable as far as FIB goes... for me, Hooked, No End In Sight, and Let It Go are completely disposable. Taint Your World is alright, a little too blatantly Van Halen for me and not a song w/ staying power past the first several listens, where it's a fun arena rocker. That leaves 6 really good songs... not quite enough for me! Simple Life needed to be at least another verse and chorus longer, if not a bridge.

It's interesting, cuz Journey's Arrival is criticized for being "5 songs too long" too... I dunno about exact running times but I'd bet Arrival and Mindfields run similar in length. I just never had a problem with the length of either one... always give me more, especially when my favorite guitar players are involved. Even if there's a few unremarkable ones in there, you can still find nuances to listen to and what not. Plus, law of averages, more songs = more chances for songs to connect to you.

This whole thing is subjective on my part, obviously, eg. if you LOVE FIB, then you presumably love all 10 songs and that's a killer album. But for me personally, it's tough to wow me from top to bottom with an album length under 12 songs (my prog bands with long songs, eg Porc Tree/Dream Theater/Genesis etc and Boston's output notwithstanding). There's just usually gonna be one or two songs that are disposable. Now, 8/10 versus, say 13/15? I'll take the latter. Loverboy's "Just Getting Started" comes to mind as being killer from 1-10...

Yeah, Arrival was too long too....but felt even longer because of the overabundance of ballads. "Hooked" was the only song on FIB I really couldn't get into...I thought "No End In Sight" was one of the best tracks on the album, but that's just me.

It's not really something I thought about as much until the last couple years when I started getting back into vinyl and kind of giving up on the dying CD format. I'd rather have my ass kicked by two 18 minute sides of Leftoverture than the 75 minute overlong Dream Theater albums they've put out this decade.

I guess I just like to have as many new melodies/hooks/sections from as many different songs as possible, within reason (double discs usually always shoulda been one disc...) That's why this latest 6 song release from DT, even though 5 of them clock in at 8+ mins, just feels too "short" to me. There's just not enough for me to unpack and return to with only 6 songs. I feel like I've worn the album out already.

[WalrusOct9]

Actually I think the new one is the strongest record they've made since Six Degrees, but that's because they seemed to have toned down the "endless cycle of random metal riffs" style of writing that dominated the last couple of albums. It's nowhere near as strong as their 90's stuff, but at least it gave me some hope that DT hasn't completely abandoned the things that made me love them in the first place.


Close To The Edge and Relayer only have three songs, yet I don't think I could ever wear those out.

I feel like, with an album like Arrival, having 15 songs gives more "chances" to find stuff you really love, but if some of the material isn't overly strong, it lessens the impact of the great songs, and the album as a whole. With the internet and all the opportunities to package music these days, there's always an outlet for stray or leftover songs...it isn't like the 70's where you put out your album and that was it. Again, just my two cents...we can agree to disagree here.

[TotoFan77]

This post has been deleted.

[Ehwmatt]

Actually I think the new one is the strongest record they've made since Six Degrees, but that's because they seemed to have toned down the "endless cycle of random metal riffs" style of writing that dominated the last couple of albums. It's nowhere near as strong as their 90's stuff, but at least it gave me some hope that DT hasn't completely abandoned the things that made me love them in the first place.


Close To The Edge and Relayer only have three songs, yet I don't think I could ever wear those out.

I feel like, with an album like Arrival, having 15 songs gives more "chances" to find stuff you really love, but if some of the material isn't overly strong, it lessens the impact of the great songs, and the album as a whole. With the internet and all the opportunities to package music these days, there's always an outlet for stray or leftover songs...it isn't like the 70's where you put out your album and that was it. Again, just my two cents...we can agree to disagree here.

I don't even think we're disagreeing too much per se, just different expectations for an album. And yeah, BC&SL is a good effort. The fantasy lyrics are getting way over the top though. I'm still so ambivalent about Count of Tuscany... there's some incredible parts there, especially the intro 4-5 mins, but the verses are awful and the chorus is catchy, but the whole "IIIIIII...." that starts the chorus sounds like Slipknot. No thanks. But yeah, it's a good effort - although I still like 8VM a lot more than SC or BC&SL. Six Degrees was great... ToT is fun in concert, but otherwise pretty disposable for the most part.

[weatherman90]

One of the things I always liked most about Toto (like Chicago) was the use of different vocalists across any given album, but I agree that as *THE* lead singer Bobby was often underused. To me the worst culprit for this was the 'Hydra' album - okay, he sings lead on half of the songs (although countless people still think that it's actually Steve Porcaro on one of them), but his second lead vocal on the album is 'Mama' - the 6th track! I like 'Lorraine' but it should never have made it to the album ahead of 'Tale of a Man' - that track would have made a huge difference to the overall feel of the album IMHO.

As to singles though, unfortunately the band had very little say in those, and Bobby's successors fared even worse - the two charting singles from 'Isolation' were both sung by Paich, while Luke handled both hits from 'Fahrenheit'. I will always maintain that had 'Endless' been released as the first single from 'Isolation' and been given the push 'Stranger in Town' received (it got a lot more airplay than it's #30 peak would suggest) the res tof the Toto story would have been very different, particularly regards their US popularity. But I guess we'll never know for sure!

Couldn't agree more with you on 'Endless'. 'Stranger in Town' was not the right move. It took over a year for 'Stranger' to finally grow on me, and it still has nowhere near the instant power of 'Endless' or even 'Angel Don't Cry'. Ahh, the past!

On Bobby, I too wish that he would have received more recognition over the years. He will always be the 'lead singer' of Toto to me, even though he didn't sing on many of the songs.

[BlackWall]

I'm actually surprised "Stranger In Town" wasn't a bigger hit. I suppose maybe it just comes from the fact that "Toto IV" was pretty soft, and "Stranger In Town", while not necessarily rockin', featured a little bit of a harder edged pop style than say "Africa" or "Rosanna", and I think maybe the general audience and Columbia expected songs that were more Adult/Contemporary from Toto after "IV". Too bad, radio really missed out on great songs like "Angel Don't Cry" and "Lion". Actually, it's a surprise that "Holyanna" didn't do better since it was really kind of a throwback to the "Toto IV" style.

[WalrusOct9]

Even Paich admitted in an interview once that "Stranger In Town" was one of the worst songs he had a hand in writing....there were some amazing songs on that record, I don't know why the title track or "Endless" weren't put out as singles.

[TotoFan77]

This post has been deleted.

[BlackWall]

What's so bad about "Stranger In Town"? I mean, sure, it's dated now, but to me it sounds like it was just right for that time period.. Did David say this or Luke? Or was it both?

As far as "99", musically, that one has always reminded me a little of "Georgy Porgy". It's not a great song, but some of that melancholy keyboard/piano playing makes it more of a highlight. It's kind of shitty for Luke to insult a song that another band member wrote. Dave was a big part of the songwriting in the early days, and really most of the big hits happened due to his songwriting. Luke is one hell of a guitar player, but let's be honest, what happened as far as commercial success for the band once he took the reigns in '92?

[Ehwmatt]

What's so bad about "Stranger In Town"? I mean, sure, it's dated now, but to me it sounds like it was just right for that time period.. Did David say this or Luke? Or was it both?

As far as "99", musically, that one has always reminded me a little of "Georgy Porgy". It's not a great song, but some of that melancholy keyboard/piano playing makes it more of a highlight. It's kind of shitty for Luke to insult a song that another band member wrote. Dave was a big part of the songwriting in the early days, and really most of the big hits happened due to his songwriting. Luke is one hell of a guitar player, but let's be honest, what happened as far as commercial success for the band once he took the reigns in '92?

First of all I really like 99 the song and I agree with you that Luke shouldn't be insulting songs others wrote, at least on the surface of it. Now, if said writing member looks back on the song and regrets it and doesn't like it, that changes the rules. Plus, your thought process and evaluation of your own work changes as time distances you from when you created it - hell, you needn't be an artist to experience this, did you ever go back and look at a paper you wrote for school at an earlier point in your life? You might have found it not up to par to your evolved standards either.

As far as commercial success after Luke took the reigns, you answered your own question: 1992. Not exactly a conducive time for this type of music to be successful. Luke's a very good songwriter and an underrated singer, especially back in those days. But at any rate, Toto truly was a case of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts...

[hydraturnback]

If David thought it was one of the worst songs he ever wrote, then why did he put it on the record? Bad decisions like that make no sense and it ended up hurting them. That's why I have no sympathy when Luke complains about 99 and how it destroyed the band's rock credibility, they wrote the song and they put it on the record. If they were afraid that it could end up being a single, they should have left it off and put Tale Of A Man on there instead or something.

I think it was just that time..1984 - there were lots of awful sounding songs at that time, that were actually well written tunes. I always assumed that was what DP was talking about.

Also Columbia/Sony always had the last word on the singles released - 99 itself is probably a very important song on Hydra - it broke up the album nicely and was probably 'moody' enough to be a single - however the singles (certainly at that time) would define the artist, so in that respect there could be no excuse for 99 "killing the image''.

hydra