I have been perusing the various reviews of 10,000 Days that have been circulating the net.

The bad ones seem to follow a consistent pattern. For the most part, they are self indulgent articles that focus more on writers' perception of the fans and less on the music itself. The attacks are ad hominem, stereotyping all Tool fans as sheltered, petulant teenagers living in suburbia that practice satanic gimmickery, wear black clothes and put on eye makeup.

Ironically, the Tool Hater mindset is just as easy to stereotype as that of the Tool fan. I know some of the fans can be obnoxious, but so can the writers. It's okay to criticize the band. I have reservations about the band. But at least these articles should provide some substance and not just some silly digression about the fans. I like the listen to the song, "The Pot", with the detractors in mind. It's very cathartic. Here are some links to the bad reviews that expose their lack of originality....

http://www.advancetitan.com/story.as...229&story=5150

http://www.stylusmagazine.com/review...10000-days.htm

http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record...000-days.shtml

http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-rev...ateralus.shtml

Good and bad reviews are opinions; nothing more, nothing less. You have your view of 10,000 Days, and other people have their views. Nothing more can be said or done.

What's the difference between a critic and a forum poster?

Critics get paid to share their opinions.

This just made me wonder though whether there isn't a grain of truth in it. While neither a teenager nor sheltered any more, I used to be just that. While I'm certainly not constantly petulant, I'll admit a certain tendency towards it. I grew up in the suburbs, and while I did move to a big city to study, I'm now back to the suburbs and quite happy with it. I don't actively practice "satanic gimmickery" but I listen to a lot of bands that do. I wear black clothes mostly (though by no means exclusively) and have my hair dyed black. As for the eye makeup, I don't really do it but I could see myself doing it under certain circumstances.

Thus, I don't fit the stereotype comfortably, but neither am I anywhere close to being the complete opposite of it. I'd imagine most Tool fans are similar, really.

well thanks for posting it then

Heh, that's funny. Rush are still very much together. Also, what exactly is wrong with them or prog rock in general?

Even when Pitchfork finds an album they like, they find a way to bash it one way or another. So basically what I'm saying is, lets have a steel cage match between me and these critics and see who really wins.



"10,000 Days is supposedly named for the amount of time between Keenan's mother becoming paralyzed and when she died, so it's sort of a "Death Disco" for suburban teenage potheads."

This is a quote, attempting to sum up the meaning of this album

Agreed. To the thunder dome!!! Two men enter one man leaves two men enter one man leaves.......

So let me get this straight...these reviewers are comparing this album to Undertow, Ænima, and Lateralus, yet they expect Tool to grow and change? Tool has grown and changed, and accordingly, this album is not going to sound like Undertow, Ænima, or Lateralus.

As for Pitchfork Media...well we all already know that they write the most misinformed, asinine, amateurish reviews of any website. Ever.

Pitchfork is also siding with the indies/emos a lot of the time, musically =P which explains a lot.

meh. better to just not give a shit what others think and love the music for yourself and your own reasons. one of my good friends thought tool was a peice of crap till i turned him around. hes the only really example i have because everyone i know at least likes tool.

lol, that's funny...I don't even come close to that description...

I'm 25, a college graduate, own my own home, work full-time at a job I've been at for seven years and will be starting law school in August...

And I guarantee I know way more about Tool than the sheltered teenage fans who wear the eye makeup

That Stylus review is one of the worst reviews of anything I have ever read. I wouldn't even recognize its existence.

Agreed.

This is a rather silly argument. Yes, a lot of the bad reviews are asinine. But have you read many of the good reviews? They're all pretty asinine too.

From the Pitchfork review:
How can you even call yourself a reviewer when you admit that your tastes are dictated by what is considered cool?
That line alone makes me feel so much cooler for liking Tool more than the majority of Pitchfork worthy bands.

"But it would behoove them to try and be more like a metal Pink Floyd, and start by making an album with a lot less tracks. I would much rather listen to an album with five songs where all of them are as good as a 70-minute long Tool album with half as many good songs and a bunch of filler."

I find this especially funny, because what are Pink Floyd's 2 best known albums? Arguably, they're The Wall and Dark Side of the Moon. The Wall was 2 albums worth of songs and Dark Side of the Moon was half filler. This guy's just dumb. Or perhaps he's just really deeply satirical and we're all dogging him for nothing.

Or maybe I just misread him... Actually, I think it's just too late for me to be thinking. I'm going to bed.

I believe he was referring to Wish You Were Here, another great album.

Reading these reviews made me feel like I've wasted twenty-five minutes of my life, but I'm in the desert and there's nothing better to do.

Or animals, an album with 4 songs ;)

The first review couldn't be more true or well written.

Yeah, you're right, he made a mistake about the track numbers, so his entire review lacks credibility. You're a dumb ass.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Yeah, opinions are opinions, but some are justified better than others. Some opinions are just plain vacuous, whereas other opinions make points with the support of very salient reasons -- and in that way, those opinions count for something. For example, I did feel myself blushing a couple of times when I read the pitchfork review of Lateralus. I mean, the lyrics are pretty pretentious, and if you actually asked Maynard to articulate his ideas, I bet, on closer examination, they'd sound pretty stupid. I mean I still love the album. But sometimes negative opinions draw our attention to qualities of an album that are opaque to us.

Edit: anyone who thinks that pitchfork did not provide a thoughtful review of *Lateralus* should go back and read it carefully. I think that there is a lot that is right about it, especially the first 3 paragraphs chronicalling the evolution of the band from opiate to Lateralus. The remaining portion is satire, and I agree, it takes as many hits at the fans as the music itself.

If anyone is familiar with Pitchfork, you will know that they are one of the most biased review sites out there. Being avid radiohead fans, anything that is remotely different is bad. Any music, such as prog metal, that they feel is similar to radioheads is immediately shot down. Need proof? Read the review to lateralus to find another comparison to radiohead. What an invalid review.


I also dispise the fact that they are rating the music on a basis to the fan's personalites, this is like viewing all that follow Islam as a terrorist.

Pitchfork is a bunch of obnoxious indie fuckers who like nothing but indie or music with indie upbringings. It'd be like a metal magazine reviewing modest mouse. it probably wouldn't go so well.

Dude, you're a total dumbass. They said tool was the radiohead of numetal--and you're saying they LIKE radiohead. So wouldn't this be a compliment?

You're accusing pitchfork of generalizing, but that's exactly what you're doing.