Talk:10,000 Days/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

<^>v!!This album is connected!!v<^>

Album name

I guarantee this won't be the name of the album. Tool likes to fuck with us. BluesX 18:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but the information I had wrote in this article was either released on the official Tool web sites, or in official, reputed magazines, which got their information from the band. I agree that this may not end up being true, knowing Tool, but at the moment, the most we can do is take the band's word for it and chronicle what they tell us. Not to mention I also wrote that due to Tool's nature as a band to give false information, this posted information in the article MAY not be true, but it's all we have go on right now, and it is currently official from the band.

Just fixed the crap out of the entire article, due to the ridiculous amount of made-up content, such as the album length (no one knows, as only rough counts have emerged), mistakes regarding systema encephale, and assumptions about the track title meanings. 18:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This info comes from the official Tool Web page...

...But most Tool fans know to take things with a grain of salt, especially if it involves an album name months before the release date. I say it might be a hoax and I vote to delete the page until things get official with the record company.Kpwa gok 18:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Post rumors here. Please no speculation on the article page unless it is contained in a specific section for rumors/speculation.Kpwa gok 00:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I created a rumors header for everyone to put rumored info or speculation before the info is more widelt released or known. Kpwa gok 20:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I found a quote by a Dr. Wayne Dyer: "Have you really lived 10,000 or more days, or have you lived one day 10,000 or more times?" Related? I have no idea, just something to think about163.120.77.181 15:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The album title is real, and it is a reference to Maynard’s mother. And there is no question as to its authenticity. The album has been leaked and anyone who has actually heard it will know this to be the case. The two part song “Wings for Marie (part I)” and “10,000 Days (wings part II) includes the lyric “10,000 days in the fire is long enough, you‘re going home” and also specifically has the name Judith Marie in it. (these both occur in the track titled 10,000 days)-Lux Ferre

Why 10,000 days could be the real title

If not for the album, at least something that has to do with Tool. The domain was registered February 15th, while the news about the album name was posted at March 3rd. -- drange 13:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's vote!

I have listed this article on articles for deletion to see wether this article should be deleted or not. If anyone of you guys think this article should be deleted (since it's another hoax), please feel free to vote here. Mike Garcia 23:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

From Billboard it may be official

Fourth / Fifth / Sixth album

We should probably just decide and leave it, because I keep seeing edits going back and forth as to whether 10,000 Days is the fourth, fifth, or sixth album. It's:

  • the sixth total album
  • the fifth studio album (Opiate was recorded in a studio)
  • the fourth full-length album (Opiate was an EP)

How do you want to call it? Kane5187 19:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't care that much, although if pressed, I'd stick to fourth full-length studio release. I think this dispute consumes too much time for my taste, considering what else could be accomplished in the meantime.- --Johnnyw 19:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I know what you mean and I agree with you, but it'd be nice to set it down just so that it doesn't keep getting reverted. Kane5187 20:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

songs on morpheus

There are a few songs on morpheus that say their from 10,000 days. One is called Vicarious, which is the first track on the new CD. I'm normally very very skeptical about leaked tracks, but this one sounds legit. It really does. It doesn't sound like Adam's normal gear that he uses, but the Tool style is definitely there and you can hear some whispered vocals in the background that sound like they could be Maynard. There are no audible lyrics, but it sounds like it could be a first track on a Tool record. What do you guys think?

There is another track I found claiming to be "Rosetta Stoned". It couldn't be more fake, don't even waste time on it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jombage (talkcontribs).

I don't want to disappoint you, but the article talk page should relate around how to improve the article only, or to solve disputes only, since this ain't a board. To give you at least some feedback: I'll restrain myself and wait until I remove the wrapping and listen to the entire album with the stereo on full throttle ;) --Johnnyw 02:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm with Johnnyw in terms of waiting until I know it's authentic Tool I'm listening to, but I'll be very interested to ask you in two months if the tracks you were listening to now were indeed from the real album. Kane5187 14:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of Track Titles

It may be worth noting the other meaning for the names of some of these songs in a trivia section or something. For example, Jambi is a province of Indonesia, and the Lipan Apache are a Native American tribe. The Rosetta Stone is a granite stone found in Egypt, which provedcrucial to the deciphering of Egyptian hieroglyphs. Viginti Tres is also means twenty three in latin (see Wiktionary and search viginti and tres seperately).Amazonis 10:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought I would consult some other humans before doing anything... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amazonis (talkcontribs).

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. --Johnnyw 12:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe just wikilink them in the tracklisting for now (as has already been done with Rosetta Stoned and Hofmann). Since we haven't heard the songs, we can't say for sure if they really deal with the topics that they seem to, but I think linking the titles is a good form of acknowledging that we saw the reference without trying to interpret it before hearing. Kane5187 14:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd be wary about wikilinking before actually hearing the songs. "Jambi" could just as easily refer to Jambi the Genie from Pee-wee's Playhouse, you know? - Rynne 13:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't wikilinks always link to articles related to the actual song, not the the assumed (and unsourced!) reference?? --Johnnyw 13:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Not neccessarily. Point taken on the "unsourced" issue, but for example, on one of the records from NOFX's 7" of the Month Club, there's a song called "I'm a Huge Fan of Bad Religion." In that case, I think the wikilink helps comprehension and can be very important. Kane5187 20:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There has been some speculation that `Hofmann' refers to Mark Hofmann rather than Albert Hofmann. Mark Hofmann was an elaborate hoaxster that sold forged documents to the Mormon chuch among others. Hobophobe 23:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahh...complications. Johnnyw's probably right -- without hearing the songs, we really can't say what anything is about. The only wikilink I'd keep is Rosetta Stone, because I don't think that that title could possibly mean anything else. Kane5187 01:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the "stealth banana" bit in Rosetta Stoned is a pretty direct Bill Hicks reference. He had a bit about using military weapons technology to shoot food at hungry people. One of his deadlines was "Stealth Banana -- Smart Fruit!". 20:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Cover art

I added the cover art today. Don't know if this is 100% confirmed. --Steerpike 19:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Where did you find it? Kane5187 19:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
This is not official artwork. It's on this page along with all the other fakes: [1] -VJ 22:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting...I wonder who's got the time to be churning stuff like that out? It sure looked real, but then again, so do all the others on that page. Kane5187 22:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

To be honest that looks more than real. Like someone got a hold of the booklet. Why would anyone go through the trouble of producing an entire fake booklet and take pictures of it? Are you sure this is confirmed as fake? --Steerpike 22:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at the other booklets at the link ( -- there are dozens of similar examples, some of them with track listings and album titles that were thought possible months ago but not anymore. It surprises me, too, but apparently, people went to the trouble of producing more than just one. Kane5187 01:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
There is now a piece of artwork ( claiming to be official. Although this may even raise more skepticism (given the form of the accompanying logo here: since we are moving forward on the impression "yeah some of this might be fake, but we'll post it as it's from an official channel" I guess someone can post that artwork for the album? Hobophobe 01:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's worth putting up yet, there's no confirmation that it's infact the cover, and is probably (hopefully!) just some of the artwork from the liner. hellboy 01:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, let's put it up -- even though it all may be false, we've added the tracklist and album title released by Tool. (On a side note, the album cover reminds me of some work by Alex Grey, who's done a lot for them before.
Cool! Thanks for finding that. Kane5187 01:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
We have to wait before putting the artwork up because of its unknown copyright status. We don't know for sure if it's a cover, therefore we don't know if fair use applies. Image w/o fair use rationale or other verifiable copyright tag will be removed w/o warning. I say we just wait until the gentlemen decide to release next bit of info. --Johnnyw 01:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
To be a bit more precise: what would the rationale be? "There is 75% chance that this is the cover of Tool's upcoming release which will probably be titled 10,000 days and might be released on May 2nd under a yet unknown copyright license by yet unknown a publisher"? --Johnnyw 02:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
100% Agree, no point putting anything up until we're pretty damn sure it's the cover, and it's all too vague at the moment. hellboy 01:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
File:Tool 10,000 Days.jpg
Speculation of the cover for 10,000 Days, posted on Tool's official website.
I downloaded the cover that was posted on Tool's official website and I'm not sure if it's really confirmed either. Mike Garcia 23:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: has posted the new image from as the album cover, including the new logo released at the same time. [2] Kane5187 06:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC).

Hmmm, so we don't know if the image is genuine or not, eh.

So What???

We don't know if ANYTHING on this page is genuine. For all we know everything from the album title to the track listing could be fake. BUT we still created this article. The article has a tag up the top warning people that it may contain material of a speculative nature. What is the diference between a speculative track listing and a speculative image? Amazonis 06:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

As per Johnnyw's comment, until we have the copyright status of an image, we shouldn't post it. Also note that Amazon & other sites will post 'promo' images until the actual artwork. Please see This was the 'promo image' for Lateralus. Hobophobe 08:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: Very interesting, after visiting the European Sony BMG page, I found the "official" German homepage on their links page. Interestingly enough, it DOES show the Amazon cover!! Although the website looks more like a generic music page, it really is part of SonyBMG: it footnote reads "©2006 SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT (Germany) GmbH". (And on a side note, it will be released here in Germany on April 28th.. ^^ ). Accordingly, Sony BMG is the European distributor/label (the SonyBMG page directly links to Amazon who lists "Zomba (Sony BMG)" as the label on the according item page. Maybe this suffices to dissolve our copyright concerns? --Johnnyw 12:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's sorta the same issue. According to Blair on, the "Amazon cover" (which was actually released to Amazon from the band/label for promotional purposes) is just that, for promotional purposes. Blair says the actual cover will not have the text. The cover being posted on Amazon was good enough to name the label as a copyright holder, but according to Blair, this isn't the actual cover, and we don't know if the actual cover (without the text) is actually copyrighted by the label since it might just be part of the hoax. -VJ 12:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes I remember that news item you are talking about... I was rather interested by the fact that the official SonyBMG website uses the same cover. That Amazon uses some sort of promo cover to sell their products would not surprise me as much as the German distributor/subsidiary (Sony/BMG) displaying a hoax/promo cover. I didn't know this could get any more complicated and confusing. Well, let's wait for April 1st to prove me wrong! ;) --Johnnyw 14:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Platekompaniet, the biggest record store in Norway has also added the cover [3] -- Pål Grønås Drange

150px|right I found an image at Make of it what you will. I was going to add it to the article but then read the notice telling me not to. --Lolapop 12:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Bebo Norman

I added a note about Bebo Norman, a contemporary Christian musician, having released a similarly named album in 1999, which was reverted by Kane5187 for not seeming relevant. I don't feel that strongly about it, but I think it's relevant. Last time Tool pulled a hoax, the claim was that Maynard James Keenan found Jesus [4], a hoax carried through so effectively that MTV reported on it and many fans were convinced it was true [5]. I don't want to violate NPOV about this, but I am 99.9% sure that the album name and track listing is bullshit, and there are a lot of clues making it out to be an elaborate joke. The background notes on the track names do a good job of referencing those clues without passing a judgment one way or another. Maybe I'm reading too much into it with the Bebo Norman thing, but I wanted to do the same with the title. There may also be some (possibly biblical) significance to "ten thousand days" that motivated both titles that I'm not aware of. -VJ 20:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I guessed at the significance of Bebo Norman being a Christian musician, but I still feel like it's a really big stretch to draw lines between him and this album. Based on the size of his Wikipedia article, it doesn't seem he's a particularly well-known musician, nor does 10,000 Days suggest a title that would be recognizable as either a Christian or Norman album. While there may be some Biblical significance (10,000 Days sounds rather epic and godly), it seems to me that if it's meant as a clue, it's one that they must have known would go over a lot of heads. (As a side note, Norman's album was Ten Thousand Days, while all the references to Tool's have used the digits).
I really doubt that 10,000 Days will be changed (obviously, we're heading back into opinion-land, I'm just writing this for the sake of conversation). The final track listing and album title for Lateralus were revealed on February 15 of 2001, with the album coming out a full three months later. We're now approaching just one month away; it seems that, based on the past timetable, the days for hoaxes should be over. Further (as was pointed out at as a reason for their announcement of the title), sending the album to press and involving people in the production of actual copies will greatly increase the likelihood of leaking the "real" information. I would think we might have heard something.
Back to the point: feel free to add it back in, as long as it's reasonably encyclopedic. I didn't mean to stomp your contribution, but as it stood when I reverted, it merely stated a mildly interesting coincidence without any assertation of its significance or reasons why it was more than a coincidence. Kane5187 05:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's just leave it off unless someone comes forth with some type of biblical significance. But, for the record, most of those clues are meant to go over a lot of people's heads. It's sorta how Tool rolls. -VJ 06:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
There we go! Anonymous editors aren't all worthless after all! -VJ 23:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
It finally occurred to me to look at 10,000 (number), which lists a film called The Ten Thousand Day War (about the Vietnam War). Doesn't seem very likely as a topic (seems to be it would be weird material for Tool), but something to think about. Check out the page -- it can be useful in trying to decipher the significance of the number 10,000. Kane5187 00:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Amazon Links

This is just to warn/advise everyone that there was an edit I reverted recently on this page that involved a link to's product page for 10,000 Days. Not only on the actual article, but in the talk section (they edited Kane5187's comment on this discussion page with the link as well). The motive of the edit was to add that ip's referral account to the link so they could generate commissions from people buying the album after clicking through Wikipedia. I doubt they'll return here, but their edit page showed a number of other unscrupulous 'vandalisms' with the same motive. In this article and in others you participate in, watch out for this sort of behavior. Hobophobe 19:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be user who adds these links back in. I have advised the Admins and recommended a block. hellboy 09:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Page Protection

I've filed a request for page protection, because of the ongoin revert war. We need a clear and final decision on two subjects: 1. Album artwork 2. 4th, 5th or 6th release. Both topics have already been discussed, nevertheless, anons as well as registered users seem to revert whichever way they feel like. Let's have a talk here with a clear vote one way or the other to quiet things down and make this page a little more stable. --Johnnyw 15:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Addition. The admin handling my request says that protecting this page is a borderline issue. He asked me to try to get more editors involved in this discussion first. If the reverting goes on and this discussion is not fruitful, the page will be protected to enforce a fruitful debate. So let's get this issue settled and let's forget to protect our consensus afterwards vs 3rd party editors who do not know about this discussion and edit the article anyways.. --Johnnyw 10:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Album artwork The question is: are you in favor or against the inclusion of the artwork posted on as the album conver infobox?

The vote is closed. The result was against. See the summary at the bottom. --Johnnyw 19:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion:

  • Against. I feel quite strongly against the inclusion, because of the reasons stated above. The minor reason is that we do not for sure if this is real artwork or a hoax. The major reason is that the copyright status is completely unknown. In order to comply with the fair use of copyrighted material on WP we need a fair use rationale that must include things like a source, a known copyright status, the copyright owner and other things. We don't even know under which label the album will be released, who the copyright own actually is. Please remember, images without a fair use rationale will be deleted in a matter of days. --Johnnyw 15:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Against. I argued for inclusion earlier, but I didn't realize then that hadn't confirmed this as cover artwork, just as artwork from somewhere in (or maybe just associated with) the album. Kane5187 16:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Against (previously Weak For). I feel that if we're going to post the other possibly false information, we might as well post the artwork. Cover or not, it's the only thing we have. This is ignoring the copyright issues, which should probably dictate the decision. Do we really not know what label the album will be released on? Isn't it certain it'll be Volcano II? -VJ 16:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, yes we can probably assume that it will be Volcano, but we are talking about using a legal exception. To use this exception (see Wikipedia:Fair use) we are required to determine "3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;" which we do not know, as well as a "Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder (if it is different) where possible.", which we cannot, because we do not know who the copyright holder is, since the album is not relesed yet. Additionally, I assert that if the album will be released and the artwork is NOT part of the new album, publishing the image will not even have been covered by fair use in the first place.. --Johnnyw 17:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Okay, you're right. The source is obvious, but the copyright holder is if it's part of the hoax and Volcano if its really going to be used. I'm not sure if its substantiality to the album is going to be significantly changed whether it's the cover or inside-the-booklet artwork or a hoax used to, loosely put, publicize the album (because that's what all this stuff really does) - I think it'd be fair use in any case. But because of the prior point, I'm changing my vote.-VJ 19:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment states the label as Volcano. (EDIT: Interestingly, AMG lists "Tool JV.") Kane5187 19:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Against per Johnnyw regarding copyright info. - Rynne 04:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Against Copyright issues aside, post the artwork as part of the article, but there's no confirmation yet that it's the cover at all. For all we know it's just a page in the booklet hellboy 05:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Against Soon enough we will have what's right to put there, and until then it would be speculative. Hobophobe 20:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Amazon posts artwork that appears to be official: Kane5187 06:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This makes it a Volcano copyright. I think we can use that image now. Johnnyw? Dylan? Agreed?-VJ 11:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. This comes quite close to what I was waiting for. Thanks for this discovery VJ! And as I thought, the artwork published by wasn't really the cover of the album. So we could have made quite a mistake there.. Our doubts were justified. (But let's see if the band will find a way to make another u-turn in a couple of weeks ;) ). --Johnnyw 22:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Oh, the discovery was entirely Dylan's. Unfortunately, since then, Blair has posted on Toolband that the cover was created for Amazon to have the band name and album name on it because Amazon required this (this sounds like bullshit to me - lots of albums covers on Amazon don't have text on them. Blair also said that the actual album cover will be that image without text on it [6]. So I think the problem persists. The image can't be conclusively traced to Volcano, the Amazon image isn't the real cover according to Toolband. I guess we can still post the Amazon one, knowing that, according to Blair, it's unauthentic. -VJ 23:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Whoops, I am sorry. Ok: Thx Dylan! Back to topic: VJ you are probably right. The amazon image is not real cover artwork and the problem remains.. Although the 10,000days artwork on will most likely be it, we can't be sure. To justify the use of copyright material in accordance with fair use I still believe we need to wait a little bit more. Maybe we could include our issue on Wikipedia:Copyright problems to get help? --Johnnyw 19:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I completely agree, VJ -- for a start, neither the Amazon page for Undertow nor the one for Ænima has anything in the way of a title or band name on it. Besides, I really don't think Amazon has the authority or time to be altering released album covers. Who decides what font to put it in? how big it is? where the titles are placed on the cover? I can't figure out the real advantage in Tool's duping us like this, but my money's on the cover that Amazon has. (I'm just commenting out of interest -- I realize this doesn't change any of the copyright issues). Kane5187 00:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think the implication was that the band/label released the image to Amazon in the altered form because they required it, but really I dunno what's going on. Maybe everything'll explode and eventually get cleared starting on April Fools' day, in normal Tool fashion. -VJ 04:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In Favor There is a tag at the top of the article that warns people that it may contain material of a speculative nature. What is the diference between a speculative track listing and a specualtive image??? Amazonis 06:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The copyright issues mentioned above. Images are subject to more copyright issues. -VJ 11:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In Favour Personally, I think it should be posted, and if it turns out to be wrong, change it. Surely this is better than nocover.gif? Also, if it's a hoax, why would anyone bother copyrighting it? Foolish Child 12:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. There seems to be a misunderstanding in your statement. Artwork does not have to be "copyrighted" to fall under copyright laws. Images are automatically subject to US copyright laws unless explicitly released into public domain. Our concerns are not regarding that we could display a hoax image, it's that we don't know for sure who actually is the copyright owner and therefore, we cannot give full attribution to the copyright owner as required under the fair use clause of US Copyright Act. As soon as we could find a definite source regarding the copyright owners of the artwork, this whole debate would become obsolete imho. Some problems regarding this issue have already been mentioned earlier in this debate, e.g. that AMG and Amazon credit the album to different record labels, that if the artwork is a hoax, the copyright owner will most likely be the artist himself and not the label (or maybe the band?) --Johnnyw 13:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Comment. Please do not vote in a matter such as this and go ahead with changing it anyway. The whole point of this vote is to resolve the issue; until that time the section of the article is to stay as is. Hobophobe 19:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentYeah, sorry about that. I changed it before I checked the talk page and forgot to change it back. I'm a n00b :( Foolish Child 13:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

4th/5th/6th release? Dylan kindly opened the discussion on this issue. Sadly, only I responded. The question is: do we want to call the album

  • the sixth total album
  • the fifth studio album (Opiate was recorded in a studio)
  • the fourth full-length album (Opiate was an EP).

The vote is closed. The result was fourth full-length album. See the at the bottom. --Johnnyw 19:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion:

  • Abstain. I abstain, I don't care. There are much more important issues. Whichever way the majority decides, I'll support their decision. --Johnnyw 15:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 4th full length, although I agree that it's not terribly important. I suggested deciding so that it might end the constant reverts from one to the other. Kane5187 16:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Nix entirely. I don't quite agree with the clarifications above. Four of the six tracks on Opiate were recorded in a studio, but a lot of the tracks on the Salival CD were studio recordings as well. If you're going to count Salival as a "total album", you might as well count it as a full-length album too, since the Salival CD was something like 77 minutes long. There's really no clear way to say what number this is, so let's just say it's the next album, and let anybody, who really has to know and doesn't already, check the Tool discography on the band article. Fourth "standard" album might work too, since Salival was a limited edition release, but I might have just made that term up. -VJ 16:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • None. Essentially, I think if the 4th/5th/6th release designation isn't immediately obvious, it's probably best left out. Anyway, if it was put in, it'd probably result in people editing back-and-forth anyway. If another editor thinks there is an obvious release number, he can put it in later. - Rynne 04:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The forthcoming album will be Tools 4th full length studio album. Undertow is widely recognised as their debut album, and Opiate as an EP. Most of Salvial is live, so it can hardly be called a studio album.Amazonis 06:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • the sixth total album. This is the most informative choice, as it tells the reader exactly how many _albums_ there are. Hobophobe 20:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Current vote is: 2 for nothing, 2 for 4th full length studio album, 1 abstain any more votes to seal the deal? --Johnnyw 14:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 4th Album. I think the article should state that this is Tool's 4th album but also that it is the sixth major release. Opiate was definately an EP, and Salival can't really be counted as a studio album as it was limited edition, and also because it was more of a boxset. Foolish Child 12:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Has it been long enough? The results seem to be Against the artwork and for it to be the Fourth full-length studio album. Let's all protect this consensus (everyone's doing a great job with the artwork, which has been added like a million times.) -VJ 07:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. I wanted to wait 7 days, but since there have not been any significant changes in the past several days, I'll assume to that a rough consensus regarding the artwork and a deciding vote regarding the terminology has been reached. --Johnnyw 19:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Summary. If nobody has a significant reason to object, I'll close the vote now. The result was that

  • the album should primarily be referred to as the fourth full-length studio album,
  • no album cover should be included unless we can give full attribution to the copyright owner using a copyright tag in accordance with the Image use policy. Now we need to enforce this decision. Thank you folks for participating. --Johnnyw 19:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Artwork Issue Revisited

Sorry for jumping into the discussion so late, but what exactly is the problem with using the Amazon image? It is very likely that this will be the album cover art and the image can be attributed as a promotional render released by Volcano. Fair use rationale can easily be established since this is the best image currently available to illustrate the album, as it is sourced, low-rez, and there are no better alternatives. The image certainly wouldn't take away from the commercial value of the record, and the possibility of a legal dispute is nonexistent. Even if ownership of the copyright is questionable, a brief mention of the hoax cover/not hoax cover controversy would in itself justify the usage. When the album is released the cover art could be replaced if necessary. I'm all for a cautious approach to fair use guidelines, but such a seemingly forced consensus against usage seems drastic and reactionary. ˉˉanetode╡ 00:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the problem is quite diverse. We have contradicting sources regarding the label, the image itself (whether is right and every online shop in the world uses a "wrong" image and the image w/o the writings is actually the album cover), and - to go full paranoya circle - if the album is a complete hoax. All these doubts let us to decide against including the image until it is beyond doubt the album cover, considering the contradicting sources.. although I personally must say that the inclusion of the image on the German subdivison of Sony/BMG would be enough for me as to change my position regarding this subject. I believe we all tried to protect this article with this decision to prevent it from being spammed with dozens of different uploaded "Tool" covers, since we already had some haoxes being uploaded and inserted into the article. Including images with doubtful authenticity seems quite contradictory with the concept of fair use. --Johnnyw 01:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Yet the difference between the two images is merely the printed text on the cover art. Some albums (example) are released with just the cover art printed on the outside face of the CD insert, the band and album name are then sometimes printed on the shrink wrapping. That's just an example, but the point is that these two images are not necessarily dissimilar, and it appears that the origins of either pic are fairly certain. I wasn't even aware that there was a controversy until I checked out this talk page, as both and had basically the same illustration. If the image is a hoax, it is still a hoax perpetrated by the band or someone directly associated with the band, lending it some validity (at the very least the pic could be used later to document the initial wave of hoax-y "misinformation"). I think that you're correct in considering the danger of this article being spammed with cover art (unfortunately I've also contributed to that, uploading and posting a redundant Image:10kdays.jpg), but don't you think that this is happening because there currently is no album cover image? Surely even a perliminary version of the cover art would do more to deter spamming than a generic placeholder that's just begging for replacement. ˉˉanetode╡ 01:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. We might as well use the image right now (the Amazon/BMG one), since its copyright is without question and, even if it is a hoax/slightly altered image (although the text being inserted on the shrinkwrap is very plausible), it's a lot better than reverting ten image adds a day. While there's still a lot of sketchiness regarding basically everything about this album and everything Blair and Kabir say, I'm getting really tired of hyperanalyzing everything and would like to just lay down and accept whatever bullshit they feed us until I'm holding the album. Should we have another vote? -VJ 02:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
My opinion basically changed less then 24h after the vote was closed when I found the "amazon" cover on the German Sony/BMG band-page, so surely I agree as well.--Johnnyw 10:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Andy King review

A month or so back (the toolshed news update is dated 2/20), a review of the album (this was before the name and tracklist were released) was posted on by a guy named Andy King, who heard it at a press screening. Apparently, the press was not supposed to release any information at all about the album, and the label and band were pissed. The review is posted here and an edited version put against the released tracklist by a fan is here. We might want to talk about this in the article? Note also that some of the song lengths he mentioned don't quite match up with the ones from the Billboard article. I'm not sure how to go about integrating information from this review into the article, if at all. -VJ 23:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty interesting. I'm tempted to trust the review because (1) the number of tracks matches up and (2) he says Track 6 (1min). In which Maynard becomes a Native American for no good reason. (this track is Lipan Conjuring, which we already noted might refer to the Lipan Apache). The track times issue is bothering me, though, because both Billboard and Andy King are very precise about the track measurements, and they're different.
Maybe include this under the Rumors section with a fair amount of warning as to its veracity? Kane5187 23:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Just keep in mind not to jump to any conclusions, since we cannot include any original research. --Johnnyw 00:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The Lipan Conjuring thing actually makes me disbelieve the tracklist all over again. The band definitely read the review, since there was a whole issue with it and Andy King had to apologize - I can completely imagine Maynard thinking that comment was stupid and working this in as a joke on a fake tracklist. The other nuances could easily be reverse-engineered from the review - like the fact that tracks 3 and 4 constitute one song, "THE song," a good lead single according to King, being named something as silly as "The Pot," and "23" being the "walk out track." There's also the (less believable) theory that Andy King is in on everything, but the joke being reverse-engineered to throw people off after they were pissed about those details being released early seems a lot more likely to me. I'll work on integrating this stuff tomorrow or the day after; I'm swamped at the moment. -VJ 02:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed speculation about references

Please keep in mind the WP guideline that we cannot include any original research. This basically means that "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas." E.g. stating the obvious might be fine, but to include the unsourced idea that 10,000 days might refer to Jesus' life because someone wrote a book about that subject where 10,000 days are of significance is not only far fetched but cannot be included by ourselves. Anything that goes beyond collecting opinions and facts belongs on fanpages and into forums.. Johnnyw 11:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Except anybody can post anything to fanpages and forums, and once somebody's posted something and others have agreed, it's okay to say "some suggest that..." and link to that fanpage or forum, if it's a well-known one. Just saying. -VJ 19:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, if a couple of people post somehting on a board, it will hardly qualify as a well known and established speculation or rumor. It has to be published in some at least half way reputable or reknown source...: "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources." or "A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source." Other websites can only qualify as secondary sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Bulletin boards and posts to Usenet and below. --Johnnyw 23:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Release dates

Sorry to write this here guys but i didnt know where else. 10000 days is being sold earlier ie the 29th August at certain stores in Australia and i have heard even the 28th in one or two places in Germany. Some potential album art has also been shown anyways its all on this website here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Hi there, thanks for your contribution! If you need help on how to use the talk pages, take a look here: talk page guidelines. Regarding the release dates: Yes, this info was already included in the band article, and I have added the German release date to this article as well. It definitely IS the 28th. I will probably go to the prelistening party on April 27th and buy my copy that night. ^^ Regarding Australia, I really don't know, if anyone knows for sure, please feel free to add the info. --Johnnyw 09:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The album has leaked

The complete album has leaked onto the internet, and is avaible from several bittorrent-sites. Might be an idea for someone better than me in english to update the page with this new info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

done! --Johnnyw 13:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Fake albums on torrent sites

How can i tell what is real and who isnt being a dick?(Vance Clarend 23:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC))

Here's a hint: if it's dated before 4/18, it's definitely fake. -VJ 00:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Rumours and Speculation

I noticed that the Rumours and Speculation section had been removed this morning (by anon). I thought this was a little harsh since it's not released yet. However I have tried to make some effort in seperating some useful facts from that info. Feel free to add and/or re-categorise stuff within the article. hellboy 00:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh, this whole article needs an overhaul. Most of what's rumored really isn't in question anymore. I don't think everything should be removed, just reorganized and a lot of stuff needs to be made past tense. I guess we can wait 'til May 2nd. -VJ 00:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought, pull out the facts relevant to the album, and put them in the right section, the maybe re-label the rest as Pre-Release Rumours and Speculation? hellboy 01:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. -VJ 05:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I heard a rumour that if you buy the CD, you can only listen to the original and not put in a mp3 player because of the copy right protection and sadly it is true, unless it's just me and every one I have talked to only :). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Hm, well I copied it to my computer just fine and am listening to the mp3 copy as I type this (Angels on the sideline, puzzled an amused. Why did Father give these humans free will?). Volcano and Sony, as far as I'm aware, are not known for copy protection (whereas WB is... grrr), and I see no notice of copy protection in any of the credits, which they are required by law to declare. You may have just had problems copying it, as I don't think there's anything to suggest that this has been disabled. Silly monkeys, give them thumbs; they build clubs and beat their brothers down. -- Great song. AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Mine is w/o any copy protection as well. On a side note: Sony IS known for the very destructive and fucked up copy protection XCP, known as the "Sony rootkit", used on 52 titles. --Johnnyw 08:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I came across the page this morning and discovered most of the article had been removed. I don't disagree that the page needs some editing, but I though what had been done was overly drastic. There also didn't seem to be a whole lot of justification for doing it, in either the comments or discussion. hellboy 01:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I rearranged most of the article, removed hoax information, added info from the album liner notes and introduced a new "overview" header... Hope you all approve. --Johnnyw 14:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks awesome -- thanks for doing that. Kane5187 15:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


I removed the reference to the character on Peewee's Playhouse. Tool's song CLEARLY does not refer to it in any way and it is of no relevance, even the link to the Indonesian province shouldn't be there in my opinion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Eh, the lyrics mention wishes and a king's mountain view. Both seem relevant to me. But I agree that it shouldn't be there - see below. -VJ 05:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Maynard has made mentions to Pee Wee's Playhouse at live shows before the band plays Jambi.Hobomaloney

As lame as this may sound, if you listen to the track, particularly the guitar riff, and say Jambi's catch-phrase, "Mekka-lekka-hi-mekka-hiney-ho", the rhythm matches up very well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Radio Station reference

There was a reference to a US radio station that played an hours worth of 10,000 Dyas on the radio. Seems like something that doesn't really need to be recorded here. If there's any objections, speak up! hellboy 09:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible Track References - Delete?

One thing that bothers me about this page, is the Possible Track References page. According to the Verifiability Policy all of this section should really be deleted, as it's all speculation and personal view points with nothing in the way of citation. Personally, while I don't mind the concept of getting some idea of what the songs are about, at the moment it's really just a dumping ground for people's theories on the tracks. Interested in hearing what other people think on this topic.... hellboy 04:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've felt like it was disposable ever since the CD leaked. I wholeheartedly support getting rid of it. -VJ 05:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
A lot of those can probably go, but information that has been independently corroborated (e.g. AMG Glide magazine presented as fact the idea that "10,000 Days" refers to MJK's mother) should stay. Maybe Hofmann too if we can find something less circumstantial to support that it refers to Albert Hofmann. Kane5187 06:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Anything that is corroborated by a reliable source is fine, and meets with the verifiability policy. As I said I'm all for having information regarding the songs background here. Some of the other stabs in the dark, such as Jambi's relationship to the Indonesian Province should definitely go. unless I hear some compelling reasons to keep some of that stuff, I'll start culling it over the weekend (unless of course someone beats me to it!) hellboy 06:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Right on. =) I am bothered by that section as well.. --Johnnyw 08:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the stuff about 10,000 Days is only worthwhile note, and it definitely warrants inclusion in the article. Since it's the title track, it can easily be done elsewhere without a "song references" section or anything of the like. -VJ 13:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, keep the somewhat relevant and cited interpretations. If releases any new info, of course, this section should be deleted as soon as possible to keep it up to date, since it seems a lot of people only read this article to clear up speculation that they themselves have. Mary and Hoffman should be kept, Maynard commented on his mothers paralysis and the similarity between the length of it and the album title. As for hoffman, there was a lengthy post on - which I have no idea how to track down - that was transcribed from a conversation that the band + friends had in a coffee shop when trying to remember parts of their last acid trip. After mentioning any strange occurance (well, more strange than the average acid phenomenon), Chris (the webmaster) would write "(Blame Hoffman)". It is very likely that the entire post was a work of fiction, but is an official primary source nonetheless. -SB 12:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Copy Protection

For some reason, when I ripped the CD to my Itunes, it won't play or recognize Viginti Tres. When I try to burn the cd, the file is on my pc, but it says that it's copy protected (Viginti Tres, that is). Is it possible that the cd is copy protected?

Now, think of it. Sony was responsible for the Rootkit disaster. Every internet love (myself included) loves Tool. If this is happening for anyone else, please tell me, because this would have been the most efficient way possible for them to spread anti-copy technology. - CerpinTaxt

It seems like a perfectly normal track to me. I can rip it with cdparanoia just fine. —Keenan Pepper 07:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Some people on Toolnavy ( are reporting some issues, but mine is fine. TastemyHouse Breathe, Breathe in the air 11:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't rip Intension, tried it a couple times with no luck. It seems that random songs are unripable, depending on the CD, and the tracks appear as 15 kb files with a length of 0:00. Hopefully Sony hasn't gone completely insane and used this as a way to track down people who are illegally ripping cds, but I don't really care, because it is pretty much legal in Canada =) SB 13:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
No problems whatsoever with my version (manufactured in the EU). Completely legal here in Germany too, as long as you're not bypassing any copyright protection. --Johnnyw 13:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I tried ripping the track again and it worked. However, when I closed ITUNES, it said that a script was running in the background and could not close. WTF? - CerpinTaxt 11:12, 7 May 2006 (EST)
I hate to break it to you, but:
  1. Your CD is scratched, leading iTunes to interpret some damaged data as possible copy protection.
  2. Your operating system is messed up, so you will see confusing messages like that rather often. —Keenan Pepper 15:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Er, is there any country where ripping CDs that you've bought for your own personal use is illegal? -VJ 18:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
(I ripped my US copy into iTunes just fine, by the way) -VJ 18:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
No, there isn't. I guess I was referring to filesharing, which is actively fought for in Canada... Anyways, it just ocurred to me that there have been a lot of ripping problems with this cd posted by different people, and one of the first things my friend said when he saw the cd is "Jeez, its hard to get this out of the case without scratching it." Probably absolutely unrelated. Just thought I'd share. SB 20:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
My UK copy ripped fine in both Windows Media Player and Musicmatch JukeBox. Oh, and downloading files via filesharing is legal here, just not uploading. Foolish Child 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

removal of "leak critcism" section

I removed the following section:

Tool is notorious for tricking their fans prior to new releases (such as fake album names, track names, etc.), however, since the album was leaked there has been information circulating about the origin of the leak, which has led to the unofficial belief that the band has intentionally leaked the album in response to unfair treatment by their record company.[citation needed] The battles between Volcano Records/Zomba Records and the band date as far back as 1998.[1] Tool's vocalist, Maynard James Keenan, has spoken to an Australian newspaper about his dislike for marketing of music through media such as the iTunes Music Store:

"They're using the same old model...they're still ripping the artist off. They are selling songs for 99 cents, but the artist is only getting about eight cents. It's way out of balance. We're reluctant to jump in because we want to see how it pans out. The record company comes to us and pleads, 'Please, please, please do it' and we say, 'Please, please, please make it worth our while'."[2]

The primary reason is that this whole section revolves around the "belief that the band has intentionally leaked the album in response to unfair treatment by their record company", which I was unable to verify. There are no hints that this is true, which makes this speculation at best. The info regarding the dislike towards iTunes does not substantiate the claim whatsoever, although the citation might serve its purpose in different context. --Johnnyw 09:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long. I shouldn't have left it uncited, I know. Anyways, it was not speculation, it just took me a while to hunt down the sources I had originally heard that from... Please see this link and this link.
That is all I can find for now, if they are good enough you are welcome to put it back or let me know and I will do it with the sources. If not, that is all I have, so it's better removed. -- SB 15:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Figured out the puzzle... almost

So I've been trying to figure out this "puzzle" in the album art of 10,000 Days and here is what I have so far...

I am going to reffer to the pictures in the order they come in on the album art (starting with the cool tool 10,000 days pic)...

-- The picture on page 4 (with the skull, the dagger, the cards and the book) comes straight out of Danny Carrey's picture on page 5.

-- Page 7 and 8 still confuse me (Justin Chancellor's pic...) My best guess is a refference to the future or past or of letting go.

-- Manyard's picture on page 10 (I don't know if there might be a correlation to 10,000 and the woman in the background), The woman in the mirror is the same as the nude woman behind Manyard.

-- Adam Jones on page 13, if you look behind him you will understand where the picture on page 12 came out of.

Thats all I've been able to come up with until now. Post more if youve figured it out.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 15:09, May 17, 2006, EDT.

A reminder: "talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article." Kane5187 22:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

hey dylan did u read what I put in? the puzzle that manyard reffers to in the album art... hence the improvement of the "associated article." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 02:16, May 18, 2006.

Even if you discovered some sort of pattern or puzzle in the album artwork, it would not be includable information here because of verifiability issues. It might be interesting if you did find something, but until it's published elsewhere by a reliable source, it can't be in this article. It exactly fits the defintion of original research. Consequently, this sort of discussion would be better continued at a Tool message board. Kane5187 14:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Maynard's picture is referring to the second song (I think) on the album. "Treasures in flesh never few", etc. Where did you get the idea that there's a puzzle? You aren't close to solving anything. -- 07:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Just for info, the puzzle was mentioned on the official Tool website. I imagine this qualifies as a verified source?Noorss

I think I should add here that the pic of Maynard from my point of view, is clearly relating to dualities: the decanter and the wine bottle, the two kinds of telephones, the two boxes on the table, one opened, the other closed, the wine glasses, one on the table, the other being offered to the viewer, the naked woman, reflected on the mirror, dressed, behind Maynard ignoring him and on the mirror like if caressing him, Maynard himself and his reflection on the mirror. The only things I couldn't make out are the two far more to the right and the model building - it reminds me of Metropolis, by the way, but not that this means anything. Also, almost every image in the booklet can be paired, except that the close-ups are only three. And they are not close-ups, but different shots, to be precise. They are to make you see what in not so clear in the main pictures, probably to add meaning to them or clarify things. As a factoid, the cranium in front of Danny (of which he is taken the top as a lid) appears both at the entrance of a section of his personal website and in one of the picures of Antichist Svperstar's (Marilyn Manson) booklet. I think you should also know that "Rosetta Stoned" is less of a reference to the Egyptian stone but more to Mary Magdalene. Fernando Pessoa

About the synching of songs

I'll try to look up more information and expand that section later. I might make a section about interpretation surrounding the album, although being such a new release, details are tight.

I realize that some of what I posted is speculation at this point, but I will look for references later. If I can't find any, I will reword the section. The information about Undertow is factual, but technically, its significance is speculation.

If anyone would like to expand that section or post more interpretation (with sources!) please do so.

Leopold Bloom 03:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the point in having anything about song synchronisation without some sort of corroboration with the band. Endless speculations and citing of coincidences is not really what Wikipedia is about. I think we should just stick to the facts. hellboy 06:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I moved the content here, because I do not want to be that harsh and remove it w/o discussing it, although I must admit that I would like to. Independent blogs are not primary sources (obviously) and not qualified as secondary sources either. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources before delving into the subject matter any further. Considering that original research cannot be published, this section will probably have only the slightest chance of ever appearing on WP, considering that almost all sources that qualify as reputable sources do not concern themselves with such interpretations. And how does one verifiy if this is true? Wikipedia:Verifiability crosses my mind.. Since the band will never come up and tell the whole story of an album as they see it (wasn't one of the main points of Tool to make up your own mind??) one never will... This applies to Lateralus as well, as far as I am concerned.. a lot of rather dubious unsourced information has been collected there.. let's not make the same mistake again and keep to the facts. --Johnnyw 09:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

*The tracks "Viginti Tres", "Wings for Marie, Pt. 1", and "10,000 Days, Wings Pt. 2" sync up when Viginti Tres is played before Wings for Marie with 10,000 Days playing simultaneously.[3] The times for Viginti Tres and Wings for Marie add up to 11:13, the exact length of 10,000 Days. When synced, after Viginti Tres's section ends, Wings for Marie and 10,000 Days produce a sound much like that of an eight-piece band. It is important to note that the number 23 is one-third of 69, the number of tracks on initial pressings of Tool's first full-length album, Undertow. 69 is also the approximate length of Undertow in minutes. The number three occurs in the three faces on 10,000 Days' cover as well, representing one whole, and apparently meant as a clue to the three songs' synching.

While I think that yes, the 2 songs do intentionally synch up, I don't think this information belongs on Wikipedia, at least not until it can fullfil WP:V. Foolish Child 12:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the song sync theory does not belong until it can be officially verified. Perhaps a separate page onto itself with all the supporting details regarding the theory, a page similar to the Publis Enigma or Kid17 Theory page perhaps? But until something official, it doesn't belong on the WP entry68.59.54.100 02:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)jth

Album Secrets, etc.

Ok, looks like the whole puzzle, syncrhonisation thing has appear again. I though we'd already pretty much establish that there's no real evidence to support any of this, therefore should not be included in the article. I think to clarify this we should consider having a vote on the subject. My vote is to keep it out, since as I mentioned, references to it are highly subjective and circumstantial. hellboy 03:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep it out, until it can meet WP:V and WP:RS Foolish Child 09:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
As much as you do not need Newton to verify that gravity exists, if you try the song-synching thing by yourself you will realize it is there. I don't how much more "real" evidence can get. Think for yourself, as they say ;-). Noorss
I have tried it before this, and yes, it does work. However, the issue here is not wether it's true or not, but wether it can be Verified by a Reliable Source, so it is no longer Original Research. Foolish Child 15:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the song synch is a matter of making yourself believe it. I tried it and while some parts sounded like they synched, there were equal or more parts that sounded off. If you want to believe something bad enough, you'll convince yourself, but apart from that, I think it may be a farce. 16:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Wings for Marie is a lead-in, it sounds like it fits over the top because it's based around the same tune, but it clearly sounds muddled in some parts. Viginti Tres does sound pretty strong over the top of the beginning of 10,000 Days however. As was said above, it comes down to what you personally think. Some parts fit, some don't. I think it's coincidence that the two tracks together are the same length as 10,000 days. Orichalcon 12:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Just cross-reference the subject matter of the songs you are synching? As Orichalcon says, the themes of 10,000 Days and Wings for Marie are linked, so it isn't surprising they come together to an extent. The theme/subject of Viginti Tres, however, is entirely different and does not fit. While it's fun to listen to multiple songs simultaneously there would need to be more evidence than there is that this is intended. Hobophobe 23:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
There's an entire article on Dark Side of the Rainbow, which is entirely in the same vein. I agree that it's probably a coincidence, but I don't see how that precludes it from being mentioned here. Why not just mention and link to the blogger who posted about it? jredwards
Added, I'm no longer of the opinion that this a coincidence. The lyrics from Wings pt. 1 and Wings pt. 2 overlap each other perfectly when performing this synchronization. I checked it out myself, and if you start wings pt. 1 at exactly 4:46 and wings pt. 2 at exactly 9:48, the following verse AND music will match up perfectly. The time difference is exactly the length of vigneti tres. jredwards
Not long after the release of the release of the album a buddy of mine told me about this and I tried it out, its an epic track and if its coincidence, then its an unfortunate one... I think it makes a great song and like one person said, It makes sense for wings 1 and 2 to mix, but why Viginti tres? maybe the meaning of Vigniti tres is connected?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC).

Viginti Tres means twenty three. It's the number of synchronicity--if the synch really is intentional, then it does make sense. Unfortunately, no matter how well the songs synchronize, without official statements from the band, we'll need to assume this is coincidence. Such things happen.

Archived by BotleySmith 14:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:10,000 Days/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

* Green tickY All the start class criteria
  • Green tickY A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
  • Green tickY At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section)
  • Red XN A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
  • Green tickY A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
Lacks songwriting credits.Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC).

Substituted at 14:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Exclaim Article,
  2. ^ Is anyone listening?[7]
  3. ^ Trichotillomania: more on 10,000 days, Trichotillomania on