The Austin music scene through the eyes of a programmer/music enthusiast/show-goer

Thursday, May 04, 2006

The Original 10,000 Days Pitchfork Review

Now I know I don't post much anymore, but this discovery was just too good in my eyes not to share with the rest of you. So, anyway, at this point you're probably asking yourself what the hell is "10,000 Days"?! Don't worry, as a pretentious indie kid it is by no means your fault for not knowing the title of the latest release by Tool. Yes, that's right, Tool. "Wait, doesn't that break rules 1, 3, 26, and 30 of the hipster code of good taste", you ask? Oh, go to hell!

Anyhow, if you realize Tool's greatness like I do, you might have noticed the crummy 5.9 review the fork gave them two days ago (not to mention the 5.5 the new Peal Jam received, which is equally shameful). Well, don't feel too bad about it, since it looks as if the original review was a full 1.0 points higher. How do I know this? It's called site search folks. Check this out:

Yep, that's right, two reviews for the same album. Oh Pitchfork, you're so great at belittling quality music, yet you can't even manage the content of your own website.

Anyhow, the more favorable review looks to be the original, unedited version and is dated 1 day earlier than the one published to their homepage. It looks like good ol' Schreiber or one of his cronies got a hold of the original and decided to dock it a full point seeing as Tool couldn't possibly be deserving of a rating in the respectable 6.0-7.0 range. I mean, that might come off as an endoresement of the band. God forbid, such an uncalculated move could compromise years of hard-earned street cred!


Anonymous Jason Wohlfahrt said...

Nice blog Derek. I didn't know you had one. Did you take all of those concert photos?

8:15 PM  
Anonymous -justin said...

I dunno man. I've only heard the one single, and it's crap. I loves me some tool don't get me wrong, but I expect better from them. I think they've run out of tricks, this last one sounds like some other band ripping off tool, like they're just going through the motions. feh.

7:40 AM  
Blogger Derek said...

jason, yeah those are all my pictures... how in the world did you find this?

justin, i can see what you're talking about. there's certainly not much innovation in the new release, but i still think there's a few great songs on the record. i guess i always get excited about new tool whether its rehashed or not.

11:28 AM  
Anonymous nick said...

They couldn't stand the negative press you were bringing to the site, so they RIPPED the old review off! Is it history or HIS story? F'ing revisionists.

8:03 AM  
Blogger Greg said...

This isn't uncommon at Pitchfork. The recent memo regarding scores being too high recently is telling... I think they are adjusting down in general.

9:25 AM  
Blogger Number 13 said...

Anyone got a copy of the original review if so can somebody post it please? Im interested to see what it was like.

8:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


You go from having one of the best blogs around (in my opinion), to never posting. What's up with that? Just disappointed, that's all.

9:08 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home