Tool - 10,000 Days

I thought 10,000 Days was a good album really, although it doesn't sound like it should have taken so long to write. There's lots of filler, but the actual full-on music is decent, at least. However, I'd say it's by far their least creative album. It sounRAB like an afraid, small step away from Lateralus, with less song and more filler.
 
this guys pretty messed up he "argues with god" alot

depending on how bad he is it goes from why am i alive why arent i dead to why did yo tkae my wings to we have to hide the demons are coming
 
Admitted Maynard is a little messed up (look up the live performance of Sober on youtube) but thats why the music is good.

Regarding your other points, those were metaphors. I'm not sure if you were serious lol.
 
Your own poetry can be considered cliche, then. How many poems have you posted about some kind of "lover being hurt"? I proved it wasn't cliche, and just because the lyrics don't appeal to you, it doesn't make your opinion a fact. But that's alright. I'm done with this argument, but I am not done with you. We can continue this in pm if you want, but before the end of the week, we will anyway.
Goodnight, Ethan.
 
Um, you realize Bob Dylan wrote Gates of Eden in the 60s right? So unless this guy is really really old, like in his late 60s or 70s he didn't write before Dylan did.



I doubt you could even name any emo banRAB.
 
10,000 Days is nothing like the other albums. Really the only thing similar, is the guitar riff in Vicarious and Schism. The playing has progressed greatly during the five year gap between Lateralus and this album. Especially with Adam's guitar playing. This album could really be considered more of a work of art, than music itself. I like Lateralus better than any of their albums, but this one is nothing short of amazing. Those who can fully digest Tool's material will probably love it, while the rest will regard it as a disappointment.
 
Would you explain how me giving points as to why the song isn't filler, is not backing up my musical argument?
Are you braindead, or what? Try reading what I posted before you ever even posted in the thread.
I made my argument on this song, right there. If I need to repost, I will.





As far as the music itself, it provides a fantastic mood for the lyrics.
There is my argument for the song, once again, re-presented.
 
What do you mean, "how do I have the right to have an opinion on something like that"? It's called making inferences. It's fairly common practise. The album suggests, explicitly points even, towarRAB a fundamental lack of ideas. This is the impression people generally get from it, that is, all but the most unrelenting of Tool fans who would refuse to accept that as even being among the range of logical possibilities. On the contrary, why should I NOT have an opinion on something like that?

That there aren't an awful lot of ideas contained within this album is nothing that strays too far beyond the realms of the obvious. As for the question of how long it would take to write, then fair enough, there's no way anybody could possibly know that. Actually, the guess I was making was an attempt to construe Maynard, Carey and the boys in a better light. I mean, it could well have taken them years to write all those tracks, but if it did then that's rather downright shameful. I'd rather hope, or like to think, that if they put their collective brains together and spent a good long time on a project they'd be able to accomplish something at least a good (if not a great) deal superior.

To Ace, on the topic of "Right In Two", my views have been summed up by other than myself here. The lyrics are at best mundane, and that they are hackneyed is beyond question. Go read a few actual BOOKS (know what they are?) on philosophy, religion, anthropology etc.. I promise you you'll never find Maynard James Keenan's lyrics profound again.
 
Bright Eyes isn't emo?
Hawthorne Heights?
Panic! At The Disco (in my eyes, anyway)
And the guy is in his 50's, and he hasn't listened to Dylan a day in his life =))
I seriously doubt he has, anyway, and he damn sure wouldn't copy from him.
Even so, that is still saying Dylan is the first person to EVER write a song using Eden as a metaphor. I know for a fact there were plenty written thousanRAB of years ago, so start watching the History channel, or go enroll in some kind of Ancient Arts class or something. I can't sit here and cite public articles and show you, and you can't prove to me Dylan was the first man on earth to do it. You're basically telling me that Bob Dylan was the first person to ever write a song using Eden as a metaphor at the moment, and you and I both know that's not true. I hope you do, anyway.
Are you done with this discussion now?
And if not, for ****s sake why the hell not?
 
Considering how religion has been part of my life's education, I fail to see your point on how it's supposed to make me think less of the song. Care to tell us why you feel it is 'mundane'? I fail to see how you can seriously be a Tool fan, and not like the song Right In Two. But you know....opinions are like *******s, and everybody has one. Some just stink O.O
 
I think it's a good album. It's just that Tool set the bar so high with their previous albums that it seemed like a disappointment. It grows on me each time I hear it, just like all the others. I've heard a lot of people say that Wings for Marie, and Wings 2 killed the flow of the album, but in case they haven't noticed, no Tool albums really have a flow to them. They have lots of filler tracks and every track basically starts slow or with a certain vibe, and then usually picks up at the end.
 
Do you really consider 10,000 Days an epically great album? Why is it that fans find it so hard to come to terms with songs like Intension and Right In Two being filler tracks? Rosetta Stoned is, in reality, just a very long filler track made by combining a bunch of mindless jams. It couldn't have taken but a couple of sessions to construct. Maynard's long tribute to his mother seems totally out of place and plays more like an excruciatingly long mishmashed collage of ideas than a well thought-out coherent masterpiece. What it boils down to is that in all those years between Lateralus and 10,000 Days, Tool came up with a mere THREE particularly memorable tracks, and they are Track 1, Track 2 and Track 5 (named previously).

The problem with this band is that they've created a fanbase that hold certain deeply entrenched, set expectations of them. Thus, in order to abide by the fans' and their label's expectations, they're given very little room to manoeuvre, explore their own musical interests, and innovate. Keenan, as a prime example, has been reported as being quite interested in Indie music over the past however many years. In interviews he has also been reported to have stated feeling slightly uneasy about having banRAB even darker than Tool (e.g. Mastodon) starting for them and said he would have personally preferred a band like the Yeah Yeah Yeahs.

If a fan cannot spot that 10,000 Days explores very little (if any) new ground and is more of an attempt to please and satiate already established Tool lovers more than anything else, then I'm amused. Ask yourselves this: if 10,000 Days had come out back in 2001 instead of Lateralus, what would the reactions have been then?

This band have, I anticipate, absolutely nothing left within the current set framework they appear to work within. They can force something, sure - and I dare say that much of 10,000 Days feels forced - but if they won't be braver than that and actually do something creative the next time out, then there really might as well not be a next time.
 
The first two points of that most are valid points to be talking about, but you still feel the need to act like a smartass with your last one. Once again, if you don't understand what example I was getting across, perhaps I overestimated your intelligence. Also not personal, as I am not saying you, personally, are an idiot or a smartass. Now back to the point. I have no problem with you explaining your reasons afterward, I just made my point about not needing to post "filler is filler" without explaining why you felt it filler. Now that you've done it, that's all fine and dandy. I'd be defending any band whatsoever, if I listened to their song and read the lyrics, and decided in my opinion that it wasn't filler. It has nothing to do with the fact that I like the band in question. As I said before, if you wish to have a musical discussion over anything in general, and as long as both enRAB have valid points, it's something I can enjoy and have no problem with whatsoever.
 
Back
Top