Well what is psychedelic music about then?

Apparently you don't have an answer for this as well. What makes Silver Mt Zion psychedelic and what is it that Lateralus is missing according to your perception? :P It's impossible to make this point.

I didn't try to say that "pattern over pattern over pattern" etc. are what makes a song psychedelic. I wanted to show you that all those arguments are endless and vague and that it doesn't lead to the result one wishes.

NOONE I have ever heard could tell you what combination of factors exactly leads to a psychedelic sound - that's why you can't say "this is not psychedelic!" because you don't know what EXACTLY constitutes that status :)

To me it seems like you are not that open minded to this subject here because "cringy" is a very subtle & individual objection and not an objective status like you make it sound. There are things I like that would be considered cringy by others and with your interests it is just the same.

"All that cringy dark "progressive" pseudo-metal sounds that Tool puts out" sounds very biased and like you have had some bad experiences with the band that aren't really linked to their music but to their reception by fans/ popular culture/their image (which I can totally get but it's no fair because we are speaking about how music sounds and not about how likeable a fanbase/franchise/... is).

It's one thing not to aesthetically like something but you obviously have a lot of passion on hating itand make it sound like it is objectibely bad music or "pseudo". I don't dig f.e. Spacemen 3 but I don't try to say their music is shit or pretentious because why should I care about doing them wrong? :D It seems like it is very important to you to distance yourself from Tool which I don't really get if you are just talking about their sound...

"...that Tool puts out there are definitely not psychedelic in the usual sense"

I didn't say the sound like a 60's psych-rock group & I don't think that it's important to sound usually to be labelled psychedelic - that would f.e. mean that there is no electronic psychedelic music because that shit does in no way sound like usual psychedelic music :D Silver Mt Zion also doesn't sound psychedelic in the classical sense and I have had great times listening to it while being out there.

That would mean eveything that doesn't sound usual (usual = 60's) isn't psychedelic. According to this logic everything that doesn't sound like "Smoke on the water" isn't rock and everything that doesn't sound like "All you need is love" isn't pop? ;P Genres move on and develop.

Also - just because something doesn't fit the stereotype or the usual approach that doesn't mean it can't match the same classification. Garlic is also spicy without being a chili ;)

I love Mt Zion AND Tool because life is awesome and well crafted music is awesome and listening to it while tripping is awesome AND I won't miss out on either of it because that would be a waste of lifetime.

I can only recommend you to someday re-check the issue someday because you are missing out on a great sonical experience and life is all about experiences yo :D

If not I guess that's okay either but don't run around telling people that the music they care for "iS noT pSych0delic enough!1!" WITHOUT PROPER REASONING :D This here is one of the few subs where logical argumentation actually still means something.