|
|
Post by Erik Rupp on Oct 24, 2011 16:21:54 GMT -5
 Wow. While the initial feelings that many (most?) people had about this pairing were that it wouldn't be all that compatible (and could be a major disappointment) I don't think anyone could have possibly been prepared for this. Words cannot adequately describe just how bad this album is. I was hoping for something like Lou's New York album on steroids -as many others were hoping. Hope springs eternal, but so does the supreme awfulness that is Lulu. At least on most of his albums Lou made some pretense of singing and carrying some kind of tune vocally. Yeah, his vocal style is mostly spoken, but it's spoken in musical notes and on key with some kind of legitimate melody. On Lulu Lou dispenses with that pretense on most of the album and just spews forth some nonsensical ravings that make him sound like some kind of schizophrenic who went off his meds. For their part Metallica sounds like third rate Metallica on the album. Sure, they can't help but stumble onto some good riffs here and there, but overall the music they play sounds like something they threw together in one afternoon. Not that it sounds like they threw each song together in individual afternoons, but it sounds like they threw ALL of the songs together in one afternoon. Often, as on, "Mistress Dread," it sounds like Lou is doing vocals to one song while Metallica is playing another seriously thrashy, and completely different, song at the same time. What the hell??? It almost sounds like this is a joke, but then I'm reminded of the clusterf*** that was St. Anger. That sounded like a joke, too, at times. Certainly the trash can lid snare drum sound must have been a joke, right? But would Metallica try to pull of that same satirical joke twice? If this album is a serious attempt at music then it is one of the biggest failures in the history of recorded music. It's that bad. If it's satire then Metallica should be slapped upside their heads for attempting the same satire twice within five years. Seriously, words truly cannot adequately convey how bad this album is. That point is worth repeating. This may very well be the worst album that either of these parties has ever been involved in. UG- LEE. This album makes the worst of Lou Reed and St. Anger both sound like artistic achievements in comparison. Even when Metallica provides some nearly catchy music and Lou Reed provides some nearly melodic vocals ("Iced Honey," "Cheat On Me," are examples) the results are poor. With the right vocal melodies these songs might have been the few shining lights on the album. Instead these songs only reach for mediocrity while still falling short. Don't waste your time. Certainly don't waste your money. Pretend this album never happened. You'll be much happier. 0/5 |
|
|
|
Post by Erik Rupp on Oct 24, 2011 22:56:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by roadrat15 on Oct 26, 2011 12:59:33 GMT -5
If that is what Lou classes 'new & innovative material', then the best thing for him to do is to shut up & glory in his 'grumpy old man of rock' title . As for Metallica; the difference between this pile of shite & ST. ANGER is . . .I liked two songs off the latter! Nothing is redeemable here!
|
|
|
|
Post by musicofourheart on Nov 6, 2011 9:12:38 GMT -5
I don't agree with your review Erik. Let me tell you why. First of all your "expectations" about Lulu were misguided. Lulu was never meant to be New York on steroids. Like many Lou Reed and Metallica fans alike, people are missing the point of Lulu. Lulu is a serious collaboration that is a companion work to the German expressionist writer Frank Wedekind’s plays Earth Spirit and Pandora’s Box. These works are dark literary efforts which form the backdrop of the narration and music that accompany and expand the vision of Wedekind. Since most people fail to understand what Lulu is about they tend to miss what the music and lyrics are saying. This is a post modern metal music collaboration that I find very illuminating and gripping. I own Lulu and each time I listen to it I get a stronger sense of its purpose and meaning. I saw Lou Reed and Metallica live at Madison Square Garden as part of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 25th Anniversary concert. Their follow up effort is risky, edgy and will go down in the annals of concept music collaboration classics. Trying to pigeon hole Lulu as the next Lou Reed recording or Metallica recording totally misses the point of what Lulu accomplishes. You can read more about my past thoughts on Lulu at my music blog here, musicofourheart.wordpress.comThanks for the music board site and allowing me to express my opinion here, Erik |
|
|
|
Post by Erik Rupp on Nov 6, 2011 12:56:59 GMT -5
You're welcome.
The one thing I would say negates some of what you're saying is that Lulu was released as a music album, and advertised as such. What you're saying is that it's more performance art than music - almost like a spoken word piece with music underneath that isn't supposed to match the vocals/lyrics in anything but it's expression of anger.
But it was released as a music album, and as such it is a colossal failure. The vocals do not match the music. They do not fit the timing/rhythm of the music, nor the key. That makes it unlistenable as music.
And they COULD have done this better as music and still accomplished what they set out to do. Wedekind's works could have been done as New York on steroids, and a lot more people would have enjoyed it. It could have had the same rage and dark literary themes, but been more musical.
So on the musical level it is a complete and utter failure. The damned thing is almost impossible to listen to, even if you know what it is supposed to be.
|
|
