Did You Like Or Hate The Lou Reed & Metallica Album Lulu

Salami · 12-10-2011, 05:13 AM

I have no idea what nineteen year old me will be like.

But seriously, it would greatly surprise me that anyone would offer to "jam" with Lars Ulrich, less so follow through when the offer is accepted. Lou Reed must have been really desperate.

Zer0 · 12-10-2011, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3

I'm sure 19 year old me thinks I'm a total sell-out pussy. The problem is 19 year old me is a sheltered moron with no world experience.

By world experience do you mean make millions, develop a bloated ego and loose touch with reality as a result of fame? If that's the case then I'd happily hang out with 19 year old you. At least being 19 and not giving a f*ck was fun.

TheBig3 · 12-10-2011, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zer0

By world experience do you mean make millions, develop a bloated ego and loose touch with reality as a result of fame? If that's the case then I'd happily hang out with 19 year old you. At least being 19 and not giving a f*ck was fun.

Yes, thats exactly what I mean by world experience. And 19 year old me hates you. I was an angry young man...and I loved Metallica.

But honestly, what Metallica in 1983 thinks about this album isn't a strong argument. In all honesty, I'm not going to listen to this album. It sounds like it would be bad and the reviews seem to back that up. But what does Metallica need to prove about their chops anymore? From where I sit, they aren't given the proper credit for what they've contributed to the music world (Yes, I am saying they are underrated) and they are universally hated for unrelated things like Napster and that St. Anger movie.

Plenty of bands make absolutely ****ty albums. Few of them changed changed a musical landscape as thoroughly as Metallica has. In the scheme of things, I think they’re doing just fine.

**Janszoon** · 12-10-2011, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3

Yes, thats exactly what I mean by world experience. And 19 year old me hates you. I was an angry young man...and I loved Metallica.

But honestly, what Metallica in 1983 thinks about this album isn't a strong argument. In all honesty, I'm not going to listen to this album. It sounds like it would be bad and the reviews seem to back that up. But what does Metallica need to prove about their chops anymore? From where I sit, they aren't given the proper credit for what they've contributed to the music world (Yes, I am saying they are underrated) and they are universally hated for unrelated things like Napster and that St. Anger movie.

Plenty of bands make absolutely ****ty albums. Few of them changed changed a musical landscape as thoroughly as Metallica has. In the scheme of things, I think they’re doing just fine.

The problem with Metallica has nothing to do with Napster or Some Kind of Monster, it has to do with the fact that they've been releasing crappy music pretty much exclusively for the past two decades. That said, there's certainly no doubt that their first few albums played a huge role in the direction of metal.

Salami · 12-10-2011, 11:33 AM

Although much of the reason why they are awful lies with Lars Ulrich. They were three albums into their career before he decided to take drumming lessons. Amusingly, from then on Metallica started getting really bad!

LoathsomePete · 12-10-2011, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

The problem with Metallica has nothing to do with Napster or Some Kind of Monster, it has to do with the fact that they've been releasing crappy music pretty much exclusively for the past two decades. That said, there's certainly no doubt that their first few albums played a huge role in the direction of metal.

A band that fronted a succession of great and important albums years ago then struggled to find relevance in a new age while continually switching out styles, jogging behind bandwagon while fans try to excuse the new stuff by citing how important their old material is. No wonder Lou Reed decided to work with them.

**Janszoon** · 12-10-2011, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoathsomePete

A band that fronted a succession of great and important albums years ago then struggled to find relevance in a new age while continually switching out styles, jogging behind bandwagon while fans try to excuse the new stuff by citing how important their old material is. No wonder Lou Reed decided to work with them.

TheBig3 · 12-10-2011, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

The problem with Metallica has nothing to do with Napster or Some Kind of Monster, it has to do with the fact that they've been releasing crappy music pretty much exclusively for the past two decades. That said, there's certainly no doubt that their first few albums played a huge role in the direction of metal.

Except that whenever you find a rant of blind-rage trashing them, they always go back to it, and its generally metal fans. Theres a sense that because they aren't "**** everything" they aren't worth ****.

Maybe you don't like the music of the 1990's but its not crap. Its certainly not the same music they played in the 1980's, but I'd rather have them play what they want and do well than play what they think fans are going to not **** on them for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoathsomePete

A band that fronted a succession of great and important albums years ago then struggled to find relevance in a new age while continually switching out styles, jogging behind bandwagon while fans try to excuse the new stuff by citing how important their old material is. No wonder Lou Reed decided to work with them.

Well played sir. But the problem with this argument is that you're attempting to dismiss the act as a whole based on new material. Just because you're looking at the other side of the coin doesn't mean its a different coin.

Salami · 12-10-2011, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoathsomePete

A band that fronted a succession of great and important albums years ago then struggled to find relevance in a new age while continually switching out styles, jogging behind bandwagon while fans try to excuse the new stuff by citing how important their old material is. No wonder Lou Reed decided to work with them.

Very well played!

Zer0 · 12-10-2011, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3

Yes, thats exactly what I mean by world experience. And 19 year old me hates you. I was an angry young man...and I loved Metallica.

But honestly, what Metallica in 1983 thinks about this album isn't a strong argument. In all honesty, I'm not going to listen to this album. It sounds like it would be bad and the reviews seem to back that up. But what does Metallica need to prove about their chops anymore? From where I sit, they aren't given the proper credit for what they've contributed to the music world (Yes, I am saying they are underrated) and they are universally hated for unrelated things like Napster and that St. Anger movie.

Plenty of bands make absolutely ****ty albums. Few of them changed changed a musical landscape as thoroughly as Metallica has. In the scheme of things, I think they’re doing just fine.

I know they're getting old but they could perhaps release an album that lives up to their reputation. Death Magnetic wasn't a disaster but it was certainly no Ride The Lightning or Master Of Puppets. In my view only their first four albums are a testament to their legacy, the black album was good enough, but after that their musical output was very questionable. It's been 20 years now since the black album which is 2/3 of their career and they haven't released anything really worth listening to since. At least Megadeth managed to regain some sort of credibility with their more recent albums.

I certainly wouldn't say that they're underrated. Just look at how many metal bands still look to their early albums for inspiration. They've got the credit they deserve for those albums and they've had a huge impact on the world of music. I don't care about the whole Napster thing and I actually found Some Kind Of Monster entertaining, but it's the fact that they've released no music over the past 20 years and counting that lives up to their reputation that is tainting my current view on them.

View Poll Results: Did You Like Or Hate The Lou Reed & Metallica Album Lulu
Like	6	13.04%
Hate	40	86.96%
Voters: 46. You may not vote on this poll

12-10-2011, 05:13 AM	#21 (permalink)
Salami Get in ma belly Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Derbyshire Posts: 1,385	I have no idea what nineteen year old me will be like. But seriously, it would greatly surprise me that anyone would offer to "jam" with Lars Ulrich, less so follow through when the offer is accepted. Lou Reed must have been really desperate.

12-10-2011, 11:33 AM	#25 (permalink)
Salami Get in ma belly Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Derbyshire Posts: 1,385	Although much of the reason why they are awful lies with Lars Ulrich. They were three albums into their career before he decided to take drumming lessons. Amusingly, from then on Metallica started getting really bad!