And full disclosure yeah Maynard sucks, this is just more about the circumstances than the bad.

Band, even.

So Tool organizes a destination festival for themselves. It is a three-day show in the Dominican Republic, the idea from the costs being that you are flying in to see this show, it's not for locals. Since they are headlining two of the three nights, the promise is made that you will get two unique sets.

Except the second day's set repeats some songs. Now this becomes the interesting question, here.

How do we define unique? In both days shows, it was five songs, leave stage, encore of two more songs. And the first two songs and the two encore songs were different between the two nights.

But the main thrust of the main set was the same three songs played the same way into each other.

Does unique mean the audience was right to have expectations of 100% different sets on both nights?

Are we measuring unique by different versus same songs in the setlist, at which point technically it was unique, 4 versus 3?

Or are we talking about it as sheer amount of time played, because the songs they swapped on both nights were from earlier in their career where their songs were about 5 minutes long as opposed to like 10, so time-wise the sets were more similar than not.

It'll be interesting because the legal definition of unique hasn't really been used in this way before.

Actually having looked closer at the setlists it's 4/4 on the second day.

Basically by not playing the same set twice, did that satisfy the conditions of uniqueness? Or did it need to be two truly different sets?

the lawyer getting their ass lollll