ihatemusic

It has great noises, and some good improvisations
but this record is not even out yet
and already is making history as the biggest failure ever.
If you are bored
just google it
and read the reviews online,
I can assure you that you are going to have a lot of fun!
Why is this record so hated?

You can listen to it here:
http://www.loureedmetallica.com/listen-to-lulu.php

Naturally one would have expected a double resurrection.

Expect a version by Zeitkratzer in some 30 years (with Mattin on vocals?).

Haven't heard much of it, so can't contribute anything else, sorry. I would say "expectations", but does anyone really expect anything out of these five anymore?

grisha wrote:Expect a version by Zeitkratzer in some 30 years (with Mattin on vocals?).

I'm not listening to this as I've long long long since given up on Lou Reed and never got into Metallica, but I did ask a friend last night when they thought Reed would have had to die to entirely preserve his well-deserved reputation earned with the VU. it's hard to have an answer after 1989 (New York), and I even think that record is decidedly overrated. I might go 1975 and MMM, I might even consider 1970 and Loaded and omit his entire solo career.

also plenty of people on ILX were digging it last I checked:

http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelected ... 015#unread

yeah. I don't hate it. I just find the songs I've heard pretty boring.

jon abbey wrote: but I did ask a friend last night when they thought Reed would have had to die to entirely preserve his well-deserved reputation earned with the VU.

What an odd thing to say. So if somebody creates something that other people decide to endow with "canonical" status, it's maintenance of that "canonical" status is contingent upon all subsequent work satisfying the critic in the same way?

It seems to me that if somebody considers "& Nico" or "White Light/White Heat" to be important cultural artifacts, they would continue to think so even if Lou Reed has spent the rest of his life playing in Little Richard cover bands. to if he had never done anything subsequent or had died??

I'm only 4 songs in via that link above, but this is for sure the best thing Metallica did since the black album.

As I read somewhere: it's basically a metalband jamming through typical riffs etc, with Lou Reed shouting absurd poetry over it. What's there not to love??

If the rest stays as good as this first couple of songs, I'm buying it, albeit maybe more for old times sake than anything else. Hahaha.


instant update: ouch, song 5 starts really boring indeed.
update 2: it does get on its feet after a minute or 3, more or less
update 3: Hetfield's vocals should've been left out most of the time

Incidentally, I had a brief metal phase when I was 12. Even then I never liked Metallica. I always thought they sounded plodding and dull. I liked Megadeth and Slayer much more, they had a tight grooviness that Metallica has always lacked.

I think both Slayer and Metallica, except for 2 or maybe 3 albums each, are greatly overrated. (Megadeth hasn't really that successful, so I don't consider them overrated, but also they have only 2 or 3 good albums.)

Do Faith No More and White Zombie count as metal bands? In retrospect, I'd have to say they're the best, though I probably didn't think so at the time.

Rock critics falling over themselves to deliver a kicking is most unedifying.

it's basically a metalband jamming through typical riffs etc, with Lou Reed shouting absurd poetry over it. What's there not to love??

Indeed.

This review makes the amusing error of trying to give it a grand kicking and inadvertently making it sound great: "Over great swathes of the album, the effect is that of Lou Reed ranting over some Metallica demos that were never intended for human consumption." C'mon!

negative potential wrote:What an odd thing to say. So if somebody creates something that other people decide to endow with "canonical" status, it's maintenance of that "canonical" status is contingent upon all subsequent work satisfying the critic in the same way?

oh, for crying out loud, you'd argue with me if I posted that people need oxygen to live ("What an odd thing to say. So mermaids aren't people now according to your strangely warped American capitalist perspective?").

rephrase it if you want, my point was that Reed has been dreadful for decades, embarrassingly so recently (again, not talking about this one).

It seems to me that if somebody considers "& Nico" or "White Light/White Heat" to be important cultural artifacts, they would continue to think so even if Lou Reed has spent the rest of his life playing in Little Richard cover bands.

again, not what I said. Bob Dylan sucking for decades doesn't affect the appraisal of his early work, but if he'd died when Hendrix or Coltrane did, his overall legacy would be different, just as we'd look at Hendrix or Coltrane a little differently if they'd lived decades longer and turned into self-caricatures.

jon abbey wrote:
oh, for crying out loud, you'd argue with me if I posted that people need oxygen to live ("What an odd thing to say. So mermaids aren't people now according to your strangely warped American capitalist perspective?").

ftw

jon abbey wrote: oh, for crying out loud, you'd argue with me if I posted that people need oxygen to live ("What an odd thing to say. So mermaids aren't people now according to your strangely warped American capitalist perspective?").

Your post count is 12455. If I were just trying to dog you for arguments, my post count should be at least half of that. Mine is a paltry 508. Not even 5% of yours. Try to keep your paranoid narcissism in check.

again, not what I said. Bob Dylan sucking for decades doesn't affect the appraisal of his early work, but if he'd died when Hendrix or Coltrane did, his overall legacy would be different, just as we'd look at Hendrix or Coltrane a little differently if they'd lived decades longer and turned into self-caricatures.

What is a "legacy"? Just the sum total of their work? If so, this statement is tautological, like saying "if he'd died when Hendrix or Coltrane did, he would have had a much smaller body of work."

it would be tautological if I didn't add "AND TURNED INTO SELF-CARICATURES".

(much like yourself, actually)

For Loutallica, people are looking for the car wreck. It's pretty funny. I wonder how Lou feels about it, that maybe he would like the hate to make him feel young again.

negative potential wrote:

jon abbey wrote: oh, for crying out loud, you'd argue with me if I posted that people need oxygen to live ("What an odd thing to say. So mermaids aren't people now according to your strangely warped American capitalist perspective?").

Your post count is 12455. If I were just trying to dog you for arguments, my post count should be at least half of that. Mine is a paltry 508. Not even 5% of yours. Try to keep your paranoid narcissism in check.

Read 'em and weep. Those are numbers, they do not lie.

I don't think that's the appropriate statistic. let's keep this thread out of the DLO please.

m

jon abbey wrote:it would be tautological if I didn't add "AND TURNED INTO SELF-CARICATURES

Lou has always been a self-caricature, even back in the VU days. How seriously can anyone take the whole "transexual junky low-life" schtick from a Syracuse University educated English major? Personas in rock music have always been about fantasy, image, simulacra. The only difference is that in Lou's case, the formula gets repetitive over the course of a half century.

That's also why I think the comparison to Coltrane isn't quite right; guys like Coltrane are like skilled artisans. They're honing a craft. They're also great artists, but ultimately a significant amount of their artistry is also due to a certain kind of technical ability, like Leonardo da Vinci or Pablo Picasso. So you can't compare pop/rock music with jazz and improvised music. Guys like Peter Brötzmann and Keith Rowe have been basically honing their craft for a good half-century, rather than tinkering with some image. Since their work is not contingent upon the construction of some "persona", it can be appreciated on that sort of "excellent at what they do" level, whereas guys like Lou Reed or Iggy Pop are all about making some initial impact upon a pop landscape, which ultimately becomes tired when the landscape itself changes.

schiksalgemeinschaft wrote:I think both Slayer and Metallica, except for 2 or maybe 3 albums each, are greatly overrated. (Megadeth hasn't really that successful, so I don't consider them overrated, but also they have only 2 or 3 good albums.)

Metallica has some cool middle school memories for me, Slayer I think holds up the best among them since they were the most cartoonish, but I've never had any interest in Megadeth whatsoever, even as a kid. Thrash is mostly boring for me anyway; not extreme enough, too much like a super serious version of hair metal or something. I do like Nuclear Assault a lot though.