Reviewed by: Ayo Jegede
Reviewed on: 2006-05-02

Posted 05/02/2006 - 06:48:22 AM by jerichomaxim:
	Wish you had gotten around to actually reviewing the record itself, instead of the band and its fans.
Posted 05/02/2006 - 07:33:36 AM by mrameche:
	So, umm... what does the record sound like?
Posted 05/02/2006 - 08:58:02 AM by konatus:
	Really, that was a poor review. What am I saying? That wasn't even a review, just an extremely insipid anecdote with a couple comments about the band members roles and the cover art latched on to it. And I really cannot comprehend how you can list off a few nu-metal bands and call them Tool's "closest ilk", in what respect exactly? By the fact that those bands have been inflenced by Tool? Stylus sure could use some quality control around here, I tell ya.
Posted 05/02/2006 - 08:58:07 AM by fleezer:
	yet another clueless personally biased review which cancels itself out, good job. rosetta stoned owns your life
Posted 05/02/2006 - 09:08:21 AM by gnarles:
	I haven't heard the album yet (I'm going to get it today) but I can say with certainty that this is one of the worst record reviews I've ever read. It only makes me want to buy it more, based on the last few records I've bought that Stylus slammed.
Posted 05/02/2006 - 09:32:21 AM by jhitting:
	Don't worry, Ayo. I went to the same concert (albeit in Hershey) and felt the luster of a new Tool album wear off that very night. Fantomas opened for Tool and made me reevaluate what a metal band should sound like. You're dead right about the album cover and the opening single. Maynard needs a ghost lyricist or an intro to lit class at a liberal arts college. The rest of the band sounds good on the few tracks I downloaded. Overall, I want to hear the complete work before passing judgment. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if Tool's slow decline following Aenima continued into this album as well. God, those lyrics are bad.
Posted 05/02/2006 - 09:35:27 AM by whiteboysushi:
	I'm not sure you know what "leitmotif" means, but I'm also not sure Tool is capable of making music that doesn't make me feel I'm about to die of boredom, so I guess this is sort of a wash.
Posted 05/02/2006 - 10:09:59 AM by frantic:
	Just like 5 years ago, music critics make themselves look silly by trying to make one of the rare bands with some sense of focus, look silly. I'm willing to bet real money that there will be > 1% reviews which will take the record at face value, and stylus and pitchfork have already proved me right.
Posted 05/02/2006 - 11:30:38 AM by Zarklephaser:
	Pitchfork did it better.
Posted 05/02/2006 - 12:21:02 PM by hunky_dory:
	Not sure I understand the backlash toward this review. Ayo's saying the album is a shitty rehash of previous material. What's the problem? Yet another case of readers being offput by a reviewer's stance. An unfavorable review doesn't mean you're not allowed to like the record, and the fact that the review doesn't mesh with your preconceptions doesn't make it a bad review. Toughen up, folks. Also, Ayo, I live in Indy...call me!
Posted 05/02/2006 - 12:26:12 PM by hunky_dory:
	One more thing: A leitmotif in literature is a recurring theme; in music it's a recurring phrase or melody that accompanies a recurring idea or situation. Think 'The Nutcracker March' or 'Ride of the Valkyries.' I'm an ass, I know.
Posted 05/02/2006 - 12:48:18 PM by cables:
	I like tool a lot, and i really didn't think this review was that bad. But since when is tool grouped with Godsmack and Staind? That's kind of insulting.
Posted 05/02/2006 - 01:05:55 PM by draglikepull:
	It would be nice at some point to read a review of Tool's music rather than Tool's fans. If you don't like Tool that's fine, but I hope it's because you've given the music a fair shot and found that it didn't interest you, not because you don't want to be associated with whatever stereotypes go along with their fan base. To be honest I've never understood the huge amount of criticism Tool gets. Even if you don't like them, there are bands like Opeth who do similar things a hundred times worse who would be much better targets for the vitriol.
Posted 05/02/2006 - 01:39:58 PM by frantic:
	"Not sure I understand the backlash toward this review. Ayo's saying the album is a shitty rehash of previous material. " ------- There you go. You made me reread the horrible thing again. OK, first of all, he's NOT saying that. He spends three paragraphs talking about Tool fans and little else (I don't know if it's such a big deal over in the US, here in Europe Tool fans aren't nearly as rabid, or silly, as music reviewers would want you to think), and then he proceeds to diss Tool's music in general, not the album. He does, to be precise say a thing or two about Vicarious, and then there go the two obligatory paragraphs which show his complete ignorance on the subject matter. Let me elaborate on those in a bit more detail, because they're symptomatic and you'll find them in most other Tool reviews you'll read. Firstly, he explains to us that Tool, while generally thought to be 'progressive' (pretty much untrue, but we'll let it slide), is actually making quite simple, boring music. That sort of characterization for a band that almost singlehandedly opened up dozens of new possibilities in heavy music is a blatant oversimplification. You'll see a lot of this in Mars Volta reviews, and basically in reviews of any band that takes their songs a bit out of the boundaries of a rock song. In other words, as many reviewers laughably conclude, Tool is a band of 4 fantastic musicians, with one of the best drummers around, a very influential vocalist, known for slick and meticulous production, however they're obviously not living up to the high standards set by bands like Iron & Wine, Ryan Adams, and Khonnor. Yeah, right. Since when is being able to play your instrument, and adding a bit of prog elements, so bad for music it has to be frowned upon so fervently? OK, I think I made my point here, so I'm moving to the other paragraph, in which our bold reviewer makes an example of Tool's music out of Viginti Tres. Hello? This is not the FIRST Tool album. Tool repeateadly put such obviously senseless tunes which have NOTHING to do with the rest of the material on EVERY SINGLE ALBUM they put out. Even for the most fervent fan (probably not for those fanatics you have in the US) these tracks are skipped and aren't even considered 'real' Tool tracks, and Tool has throughout the years shown that they think pretty much the same - these tracks, as well as many other examples of 'weird' behaviour from the members, are sort of a reality check for the band which has always been able to understand the irony in their music and which has always known to make a joke about it. Oh yeah, and the last paragraph really does compare Tool to Godsmack, Staind and Disturbed, refusing to shed absolutely any light on reviewer's take on the album itself whatsoever. -------- Sorry for the long post.
Posted 05/02/2006 - 02:14:31 PM by diggles:
	I agree with many of these comments: the Stylus and Pitchfork reviews both spent WAY too much time analyzing why it's cool or uncool to like Tool and stereotyping Tool's fanbase, which is actually quite diverse. Hopefully somebody will evaluate the music, but whom?
Posted 05/02/2006 - 02:19:08 PM by diggles:
	And also, comparing Tool and Disturbed proves that the reviewer reads Rolling Stone too much; lumping Tool with nu-metal bands just because they existed around the same time is ridiculous and ignorant.
Posted 05/02/2006 - 02:53:23 PM by theokcomputer:
	Not only does this not review the music, not only is Tool nearly unrelated to nu-metal (except maybe Deftones, with whom Maynard has collaborated), but this isn't Tool's third album. Seriously, how do you ever expect to be taken seriously when you don't even fact-check the reviews?
Posted 05/02/2006 - 03:01:46 PM by whiteboysushi:
	"One more thing: A leitmotif in literature is a recurring theme; in music it's a recurring phrase or melody that accompanies a recurring idea or situation. Think 'The Nutcracker March' or 'Ride of the Valkyries.' I'm an ass, I know." I know what it means, but my point is that what the reviewer's describing sounds more like an entire song structure being rehashed.
Posted 05/02/2006 - 03:21:10 PM by AKMoose:
	I thought he said "third album" when he was talking about a Lateralus era interview.
Posted 05/02/2006 - 03:59:01 PM by diggles:
	Good call on the Deftones connection, I didn't think about that, but I still think the Tool/nu metal connection is lazy and unresearched. Whom they buddied up with doesn't change the fact that they have very, very little (if anything) in common with nu metal bands musically.
Posted 05/02/2006 - 06:45:43 PM by prohibitedart:
	This is a horrible review. I hope you know that. This album is not a masterpiece, but it is certainly well above a D+
Posted 05/02/2006 - 10:55:43 PM by Red_Pen:
	As far as I'm concerned this whole review only covered a generalization of fans and the progressive rock genre. Oh wait they mentioned the lyrics in Vicarious too. Must mean the whole album is full of such "juvenile" lyrics.
Posted 05/02/2006 - 11:28:00 PM by theresafield:
	pwned by strongo lol
Posted 05/02/2006 - 11:30:44 PM by remission_:
	Though i've been a long time reader of Stylus, i've never felt the urge to comment until now. Introductions aside, i have to agree with diggles and others on the point that it seems that reviews focus more on Tool fans than the actual album. The consensus seems to be that it's now uncool to like Tool even though it was okay in the past, as if Tool are the kind of band that people with mature musical tastes should've grown out of by the time they've finished college, if not sooner. Quite honestly, i can understand where this attitude comes from. Anyone who has seen Tool live knows that there's a fair share of idiots in attendance that are almost capable of making it embarassing to like the band. And they can make you wonder how these guys and you could actually have a favorite band in common. But, from what i've experienced, both personally and from a third person perspective, is that this attitude is only adopted for credibility reasons. Basically, its hard for music snobs to admit to liking Tool. Raving about bands like Oxbow, Jesu, or Bohren & Der Club of Gore is much cooler. Even outside of the metal(ish) spectrum, talking about your love for Unwound, Paavoharju, or Comets on Fire is way cooler. Why? Various reaons. But mainly, it's because less people know who they are, and the more popular a band gets, the less music snobs are allowed to like them. Look at what happened to ...Trail of Dead, or what's eventually going to happen to bands like the Arcade Fire. I'll stop digressing. The original point i meant to make is that this review has "music snob" written all over it. And also that, yes, Tool fans are diverse, and cannot easily be lumped together into one group to be criticized, as this review and the Pitchfork review have made it seem. All of the bands mentioned in this comment are bands that i love. The fact that Tool is among them doesnt embarass me one bit, as it seems to embarass Stylus and Pitchfork. Chill out dudes, it's okay to like mainstream bands.
Posted 05/03/2006 - 05:39:29 AM by Clutch:
	Although I consider myself a little of a heavy music fan, I have always tried to remain open to other styles of music, especially indie-rock or whatever you like to call it. The thing that (from the start) has bothered me is how much judgmental and insanely pretentious are indie-rock listeners and especially, indie-rock critics. Since Pitchfork has always been unnecessary harsh to much of heavy music today - except to Sunn 0)))'s "intense" and "deep" droning - I really thought that Stylus actually listens to the albums they review. I like Tool but I'm not here to defend their music. On the other hand, Stylus will have to defend itself from stupid, hollow and generally, offensive, reviews like the one above. BTW, I know why this album got a D+... Because it's not hip to listen to Tool anymore. Obviously, for Stylus and Pitchfork, to be hip is all that matters.
Posted 05/03/2006 - 05:46:07 AM by goldmember:
	Poor review indeed... It's okay to not like Tool but you must have pretty strong arguments to explain yourself!!! That's not the case!!! And it's the same with the pitchfork review...Fans take it too seriously, music is overrated... The absurdity here is not knowing what you're talking about...Where's the connection between Tool and Staind or Godsmack???? remission_ is right, it's okay to like bands who sell cds... F*** the hype!
Posted 05/03/2006 - 12:01:02 PM by MagicWindow:
	Ayo, you strike me as a fellow who, like me, has slowly become disillusioned with Tool. I remember when I first "discovered" them, how mysterious and inviting it all seemed. Some pretty fucking rocking tunes on Undertow, Aenima and Lateralus kept me involved throughout my teens. But the joke has worn off now, and this record helps to confirm my fears that Tool are a pretty goofy, tasteless band at heart. The lyrics are awful, the packaging is a fucking joke. The music does have some genuinely powerful moments, but 80% of it is... I dunno. It's just really shit. jesus i just want to throw this goddamn cd out the fucking window
Posted 05/03/2006 - 01:00:29 PM by diggles:
	I think the reasons for ripping on Tool are painfully transparent. Ripping on Disturbed and those other regrettable bnads is so contrived; it's like ripping on the Backstreet Boys or something ... it's been done. But when you viciously rip into a band that carries with it the respect of many, you up your asshole indie cred a thousand points. But now even that has gotten predictable. As Jack Black said when Cusack put Massive Attack in his list of best side one, track ones: "Very PUSSY"
Posted 05/03/2006 - 01:03:54 PM by diggles:
	I actually don't have a problem with the grade, I just need justification for it rather than ridiculous comparisons and the like ... and besides, how could someone who discovered Tool AFTER A Perfect Circle have any clue about Tool? Tool were around for a decade at least before APC came along ...
Posted 05/03/2006 - 01:11:44 PM by hunky_dory:
	You nailed it, MagicWindow. I'm in the same camp.
Posted 05/03/2006 - 01:40:45 PM by Seele1:
	Your review, though full of fancy words (that’s ok. I used the Thesaurus on MS Works as well for college papers) really lacks a full review of the album. Focusing too much on the fans of the band and the band itself is a fairly weak tactic reserved for the most marginal of writers. It’s pretty silly, all and all. Also, Godsmack and Disturbed similar to Tool…Gwah? You lost me there… Still, good strategic Thesaurus use. Kudos. Before anyone says I’m just critiquing the reviewer and not the review, that’s the point. I thought I’d keep it in the same vein as our good man Ayo started.
Posted 05/04/2006 - 04:42:22 AM by frantic:
	Hey, to you guys that are 'disillusioned' by Tool, here's some news: Tool was never a serious band. Why do you think they put 2-3 silly dittyes/noise/german/italian ranting tracks on each album? Go listen 'Hooker with a penis' once again. They do have serious, maybe even pretentious moments, undeniably, but they always take good care not to take themselves too seriously.
Posted 05/04/2006 - 10:31:06 AM by 1900usa:
	What a waste of time these comments are. The reviewer's said his piece and it ain't going to change. The comments section on this site has become nothing more than bickering and defensive arguments about one's own taste in music. It's never about the music, it's about the author of each post. Maybe we should shift our focus a little bit? Anyway, anybody who read the review more than once might pick up a hell of a lot about the album itself if they weren't being so indignant. There's no need to agree with the reviewer, but at least do him the decency of paying attention to what's been written.
Posted 05/04/2006 - 02:20:26 PM by Seele1:
	1900usa: He spent more time on the fans and not so much the album. It isn't Tool's best work, yeah, but it's still better than most anything out there. Better than The Mars Volta, anyway.
Posted 05/04/2006 - 09:25:38 PM by old_rummy:
	"It's never about the music, it's about the author" Which is exactly the problem with this review. And every review on Pitchfork. Anyway, great album. The band sound like they're having fun again. "But I forgot my pen, shit the bed again. Typical."
Posted 05/05/2006 - 02:32:26 AM by BreeVanDeKamp:
	If some of you are looking for generic reviews strickly about albums, then why are you reading stylus (and pitchdork)?
Posted 05/05/2006 - 08:22:54 AM by 1900usa:
	What's been said about the fans go some way towards describing the album.
Posted 05/05/2006 - 12:44:08 PM by Seele1:
	1900usa: Explain.
Posted 05/05/2006 - 03:21:55 PM by frantic:
	Everyone who felt the need to comment here or read these comments would be well advised to go to popmatters.com, which has posted, in my opinion, a spot-on review of the album. And no, it's not entirely positive either, but it's what a review should be.
Posted 05/07/2006 - 05:10:49 PM by remission_:
	Man, frantic, we must be on the same wavelength. I love the PopMatters review mainly because it sums up pretty much my exact feelings towards the album, AND the majority of the review is actually spent on the album rather than Tool fans. Go here to read it. Stylus, take notes.
Posted 05/08/2006 - 04:00:47 PM by d0gzilla:
	Really, a D+ is not appropriate. It reflects the author's disdain for the band, rather then a well thought, inciteful conclusion. That "Fat-ass Redneck" in which he referred must have had a more profound affect then his claim as, "a minor inconvenience". I offer the thought that such labelling, whether accurate or not, shows that Ayo is actually incapable of "progressive" thinking, therefore not able to offer a credible review of a "progressive band." His notion of being a Tool fan as "A serious army, with a serious credo", and then parlaying that into uninspired drones is even more absured then his redneck friend could ever imagine. Tool's fan base are those who have found that thier music, when allowed, serves as an emotional outlet from the most primal to most intellectual. This is foundation of the army whose ideas you now find "bullshit". 10,000 days is a phenominal album by any standard. I see no reason to score it a flunkee's mark. I will not give my track review since that is YOUR JOB, Ayo, not mine. But I will point out when someone uses thier medium to feed negativity, rather then foster creativty. Oh...by the way isn't that what Vicarious is REALLY about? "The universe is hostile, so impersonal Devour to survive... so it is, so it's always been We all feed on tragedy It's like blood to a vampire Vicariously I live while the whole world dies Much better you than I"
Posted 05/09/2006 - 03:25:04 PM by Zarklephaser:
	Like two of the commenters above, I also suggest checking out the PopMatters review. The best reason to read a bunch of these pop-culture critique sites is to filter out the bullshit hipster reviews (like this one) and the dead-wrong ones (like Pitchfork, who says 10,000 Days is similar to A Perfect Circle - wtf?) and instead find someone with a great take on each album (like PopMatters). Usually one of the three will get it right - and if not, that is what Metacritic is good for.
Posted 05/11/2006 - 12:10:16 PM by leefnaspleaf:
	Ayo Jegede, I know that you probably get this all the time, and I know that you probably don't believe people when they say this to you: but you obviously have absolutely no f*cking idea what the lyrics mean and are therefore in no position to comment on them. You spent half the review trying to demonstrate your Tool-savvy (trust me you FAILED) so that you could spend the other half of the review ignoring the fact that everything you don't like about the album is clearly intentional on Tool's part. And yeah, Tool always talks about how they specifically want to be a progressive rock band. That's obviously their highest aspiration and the litmus test by which all of their albums should be judged. Also, the thing about Staind and Disturbed is THE most idiotic thing I've heard anyone say this month. P.S. Here's a hint: The song Vicarious is not about people watching tragedy happen on the news. But then again, you're a Tool expert so this must have already been extremely obvious to you. Right?
Posted 05/11/2006 - 02:47:56 PM by mike_f74:
	Yet again music critics have missed the boat on Tool. It seems that anything that steps outside the box or isnt locked into a verse/chorus/verse mentality is verboten for them, hence their love of all bands unoriginal like the Artic Monkeys(Bowie circa early 70's anyone?) and before them, lest we forget, The Strokes, where in the critics had a massive orgy proclaiming them the "Saviors of Rock." I dont need to go any further there to illustrate how little credibility most critics have. Furthermore, like most comments here reflct, the reviewer didnt even to talk about the music and rather focused on there fan base, or made idiotic comparisons that tool sound like disturbed or godsmack? HELLO!!!??? Those bands arent even on the same planet as tool. As per usual with shortsighted untalented people they hear a distorted guitar and automatically this band sounds like that band. I listen to music all across the board from Miles to Miss Kitten and I would say the only similiar thread is that it is all good and challenging music which neither godsmack or disturbed has ever supplied. At least be fair if you are going to compare tool to another metal band. Maybe the deftones? But again tool doesnt sound like them just as much as they dont sound like Godsmack or disturbed. Im not sure what my point is now but it sounds to me like Ayo is just another self importan wanna be hipster doofus who probably cant wait to get his Clap Your hands and Say Yeah cd, move to Williamsburg, Brooklyn and join the circle jerk with the people at pitchfork, another tired boring review peprtrated by a reviewer with little sense of honesty about himself or what makes for good music other that the band sounds "cool". Cool being whatever advertisers or the hipster militia has deemed as such this month. Happy stroking ayo.
Posted 05/12/2006 - 02:39:32 PM by acrosstheline:
	I don't think anyone who discovered Tool through A Perfect Circle is qualified to review a Tool record. I'm only half-joking about that. I love Tool, and I agree that some of the music on 10,000 Days sounds like re-hashed Lateralus outtakes, and some of they lyrics aren't as cool as previous records. But a D+? It's not that bad.
Posted 05/14/2006 - 08:25:27 PM by JohnCameron:
	Sorry to play the drunk redneck here, guys. You want to see what's wrong with the PopMatters review? "...Adam Jones’s underrated guitar prowess." Right there. There's your problem. Unfortunately, the PopMatters guy has removed any notion of Tool fans, and somehow the praise heaped upon Jones by the fanbase is rendered entirely null and void. Tool is such a marketed mammoth of a band that you can't seperate it from its fanbase without fucking something up in the reviewing process. If it wasn't for people defending the band's every tiny decision with fire and brimstone, Tool probably wouldn't be able to get away with a lot of the self-indulgent stuff they've got going on here. Judging a band by its fans, okay, wrong, but judging a band by how much it panders to its fans, plays off its fanbase, etc., that shows a knowledge of how musicians work. The lyrics, by the way, are not good. Not by any definition of the word. "Cause I need to watch things die / From a distance / Vicariously, I live while the whole world dies / You all need it too, don’t lie." Yep. Clever and subtle. Oh, and he rhymes "die" with "dies." Look. I'm not a fan of Tool's music. I'm willing to give them technical credit, but if Beck's Guero fell flat last year because it was a rehash of previous work from an otherwise ever-reinventing artist, then why should a greater rating be given to a progressive band - key word progressive - that, by all reports, pushes nothing forward?
Posted 05/14/2006 - 11:33:24 PM by jaytothefrye:
	You must have had a really bad experiance with a tool fan. What you said had nothing to do with the music itself. You have a vendetta against anything with a "cult" fallowing. Well you showed us that you arent those silly conformist Tool fans. Any other Columnist who gives a thumbs up to the album will no doubt talk about the musical genius which is tool, not the fans.
Posted 05/17/2006 - 07:27:10 PM by garlad1:
	There's something to be said about a band that doesn't change it's sound AT ALL, over the course of almost 20 years. When you guys think of it, let me know...
Posted 05/24/2006 - 11:49:03 AM by Supa-Daemonic:
	You're totally entitled to your opinion Ayo, thats fine. But first I should point out that thats all it was, an opinion, it had no resemblence to a review. Review's are objective, and they tend to go over the good points as well as bad points fairly. You seemed more intent on insulting Tool personally rather than talking about their new album. The comments you made about the connection in meaning between Vicarious and Stinkfist are weak at best. You make it sound like they completely rehash their own work because a vague connection in lyrics. For starters, yes the two songs may follow a similiar meaning, but that doesn't mean they are exactly the same. The two songs sound completely different, and although they both talk about being desensitized, Vicarious is more pointing directly toward reality TV. Granted the lyrics in Vicarious are simpler than in Stinkfist, but that doesn't necessarily mean they don't have a deep meaning, even if they're simplistic in nature. I'm sure in all of their songs they're bound to have two that follow a simliar meaning, and even if they do I don't see how it's necessarily a bad thing. I also find it interesting that you refer to their artwork as "a stoner stumbled upon a documentary on Mayan civilization". Do you know how much thought they would have actually put into their artwork? Do you have any concept of how hard it is to make a good piece of artwork? You make it sound so careless and easy, like they tripped on Mayan artifact, took a picture and pasted it to the cover of each album. In my opinion it easily stands out as one of better looking albums among it's competition. But again, you're entitled to your opinion. For future reference though, when you do a review, try and look at album objectively and fairly rather than insluting the band and it's fans. If you had done that for this review I would have taken your opinion a little more seriously.
Posted 05/28/2006 - 04:39:14 PM by Slaytanic:
	Tool are nothing like Godsmack, Staind, Disturbed, I don't know where you got that idea from. i think you may need to re-write your "review"
Posted 07/17/2006 - 09:57:26 PM by Romper:
	I'd just like to point out that Maynard is an AMAZING lyricsist. Obviously your feebled mind is uncapable of understanding anything Maynard has to say. I'll agree that some of their riffs have some similarities on their previous albums, but at the same time they are much more diverse. I'd like to see any of you jackasses that slander Tool put together music as they do. And one more thing....this album ROCKS
Posted 08/31/2006 - 05:31:24 AM by justaguy:
	Ok well, I'm 17 as of now, so I'm used to scathing acid of these kinds of reveiws being dumped on my favourite albums. If you want a profile of a Tool fan I thought I'd give you one. Like most people my age I'm a little insecure about my musical tastes, but I try not to let that stop me from listening to what I enjoy. So I started listening to Tool about 8 months ago at the suggestion of my guitar teacher (yes yes cliche). During a lot of that time I did nothing but worship them like the review said I did but when 10,000 days was released I didn't know what to think. Honestly I was worried that listening to Tool was uncool, if only in a sly "I write for Stylus" kind of way. In spite of this I bought the album and decided that I would (and this was a bit of a strech for me) form my own opinion. After about 10 listens I couldn't get enough of 10,000 days, honestly and truely, and for a while it really didn't matter if it was cool or not. Now I find out that I must have simply been a Mall Gawth with a hard-on and that the band that introduced me to the concept of progressive rock are really not progressive at all. Well now that you know who I am I bet you don't want to listen to the album. Neither do I. I've really found any attempt to defend this album useless, I can't even convince myself. It's like arguing with fox news. Lyrical directness is juvenille imagination and fans exploring the album are simply chewing on cud. Eight paragraphs of twisting the truth to satisfy the reviewers own self importence later I can no longer enjoy listening to an album I really thought I knew I really liked. I find the whole idea so sad that I might just stop listening to music altogether.
Posted 09/17/2006 - 07:00:55 AM by themcnasty:
	All I got from this review was pseudo-intellectual elitist bull crap. In the first half, you established your "intellect" by name dropping (i.e. '“You buffoon, don’t you know what this song is? This is ‘Reflection,’ it’s talking about getting rid of the ego by using the myth of Narcissus. Don’t you get it? Echo and Narcissus are one! You’re watching yourself pine away!'). Leading the average person to believe you were, in fact, intelligent. The second half of your "review" was spent administering your "intellectual authority" by giving the album a scathing review (i.e. “Besides, “Progressive” doesn’t mean clocking in at over seven minutes no matter what. It doesn’t mean hitting every goddamn skin, tom-tom, and cowbell on your drum set.”) Unfortunately for you, I see past you. I know that Tool doesn't sound like Godsmack, Staind, Disturbed. I know that Tool isn’t progressive. You’re one of those people who can’t see past what genre a band is “supposed to be.” No one ever said Tool was a progressive band, including the band itself. So stop “reviewing” 10,000 Days as if it were one. Five years later, you are that redneck at the concert who just doesn’t get it.
Posted 09/22/2007 - 05:46:46 PM by Ms.Chino:
	So has anyone gotten round to 'Puscifying' Ayo yet??
Posted 07/16/2008 - 11:04:28 PM by Nannada:
	As others have covered the fact that you only talked about one song, I'd like to say FUCK YOU for your disrespect of Maynard and 10,000 Days. Maynard wrote those songs that dickweeds like you say are shit just because you don't have the musical maturity to listen for his mother, who was paralyzed due to a brain aneurysm and was paralyzed for 27 years before she died. (http://www.memorialobituaries.com/memorials/memorials.cgi?action=Obit&memid;=101490&clientid;=toland) Did you read the lyrics for either Wings For Marie OR 10,000 Days? His mom died 3 years before the album was made, so should he be an artist and write about it, or should he please your dumbass tastes in music?