ALMOST ACOUSTIC CHRISTMAS: Details | Win Night 1 Tix (21+ / 18+) | Win Night 2 Tix (21+ / 18+)

Reactions To Lou Reed And Metallica’s “Lulu”: None Too Kind

Now that we’ve all had 24 “official” hours to digest the strange collaboration between avant-garde rocker [lastfm link_type=”artist_info”]Lou Reed[/lastfm] and [lastfm link_type=”artist_info”]Metallica[/lastfm], it seems that it hasn’t settled too well. KROQ Joq Nicole Alvarez shared an opinion on the 85-minute long Lulu, and many have felt the same way — confused, bewildered and somewhat terrified by the album.

Naturally, in times of pure horribleness, the best place for reactions, Photoshopped pictures and witty remarks, is the internet. So we present the best of the internet for the worst of rock this year, Lulu.hululol Reactions To Lou Reed And Metallicas Lulu: None Too Kind

First, let’s start with the critical reviews of Lulu (currently holding onto a “39 out of 100” average rating on Metacritic). The 2-disc album clocks in at almost 88 minutes in length. Apparently the length and utter noise was too much for British newspaper The Observer to keep a correct time on their stopwatch:

It’s not a successful union: the songs are too close to aimless, unfinished jams, Reed sounds as if he’s trying too hard to be controversial and at 95 minutes it’s far too long.
The Onion’s entertainment site, The A.V. Club brought Lulu into historical catastrophy context:
Like an iceberg deciding to start a band with the Titanic, Lou Reed’s team-up with Metallica seemed disastrous from its inception…The transcendentally bad snippets dropped hints that Reed’s love of perversity, and Metallica’s love of shooting itself in the foot, had finally reached their respective apotheoses…Let there be no doubt: Lulu is barely listenable.
Entertainment Weekly made it blunt and to the point in their short review:
The bulk of Lulu sounds like your dad’s drunk friend reciting his self-penned erotica over a melting ReLoad cassette.
But perhaps the best-worst review came from author, music critic, heavy-metal enthusiast and current editor Chuck Klosterman. Some of the choice phrases from his scathing review:
[Lulu]’s not really designed for people who like music.
It might be a successful simulation of how it feels to develop schizophrenia while suffering from a migraine, although slightly less melodic.
If the [lastfm link_type=”artist_info”]Red Hot Chili Peppers[/lastfm] acoustically covered the 12 worst Primus songs for Starbucks, it would still be (slightly) better than this.
I’m glad Metallica and Reedtried this, if only because I’m always a fan of bad ideas.
  • Joe

    That cat is freakin hilarious!!!

  • Mike_S

    I LOVE it. And the critics, as usual, are ALREADY wrong. First of all, they, like most present day yots always have been, don’t like “music” themselves. This is proven in their general tendency to gobble ‘client facing’ ( read’: “Yay, I got to meet Motorhead once face to face for a five minute interivew and then blog for six months about it.” ) ‘ Current Musical Trend Guys’ d*ck at every turn. They rarely, if ever, have ever, EVER gotten it right when it comes to reviewing MUSIC. Read your average music review. Virtually nothing really tells you about the music, but rather it is written in a way designed to tell you what to think about the music and some sink as low as to go on about the bands clothes or what town they’re from because they can’t talk intelligently about audio engineering or bass scales or anything else that MAKES MUSIC. They’re fanboys gone bad; the frat boys who could get drunk but couldn’t get laid; and the worst part for them isn’t ‘bad’ music it’s the fact they themselves will probably never be known for much except trying to be coy and vicious at the same time about a subject they don’t really care about. Music is incidental to their own careers so a critic like this guy ( or, oddly enough, his referencing ANOTHER critic ) isn’t telling you what HE heard but what he thinks YOU should hear and how you should feel about it and why you’d be wrong to think anything else.

    Lou Reed’s fans nor he himself ever turned their backs on music nor has Metallica. And Lou well knows the pathology of the average ‘fly at the sugar’ music ‘critic’ and what drives them and it is NOT a love for music, good or bad. Both Lou and Metallica have been at music long enough to know what happens when you don’t play ball the way the game’s set up to play, but what the critic doesn’t understand is music is not the ‘game’ for them, it’s who they are.

    That is not something the ‘music critic’ actually comprehends and so will never be able to speak with ANY authority nor credibility whatsoever. When the five year ( if that ) career span of a music critic is over and they’re coming out of their own skin for committing the unforgiveable sin of aging they held against so many others; when they are waking from a pool of vomit for the third time during their week long drinking binge at the local Elks lodge; and when the doctor comes to say good-bye and walks away listening to Blue Suede Shoes as done by Current Hot Band, the music critic THEN realizes how insignificant his or her own reviews really were to begin with.

    Metallica and Lou’s work will stand for at least the life span of their own realer lives. If being liked, adored, loved, and approved of had ever been a real consideration, neither of them would have done half of what they already have. Most musicians with a modicum of talent wouldn’t, because the fact is there WILL be times you fail, there will be times you can’t find an audience, there will be times you don’t have as much money this week as you did last. THAT is the fact of music and a career in it, and it’ ain’t for the faint of heart.

    So before you read one more of these ‘critic gods in their heads, flavor of the day ball lickers’, just listen to it yourself and decide. There’s lots of tuneful, melodic cack today I find far more hateable than LuLu.

    LOTS and lots of it. Why aren’t these critics making as much effort to tear down The Strokes latest effort?

    Because they can’t keep up with this weeks crap flavored crap. So they go after a big dog, because he’s an easier target. LuLu is that big dog. It’s built by big names. With all the millions of little dogs hoarding around to be heard, it’s too much for the room temperature IQ’s of your average music critics to handle. The stress to be identifying the Next Big Thing is intense. If you’re 22 and you haven’t outed who that is by the time you’re 27, you’re finished as a music critic. You ain’t gonna be writing for RS or Pitchfork or even worse, some Brit tabloid, any time soon, that’s for sure. You’ll be too old already and 27 is over the hill in the side show act that is music critique..erm, ‘game’.

    Not to be too unduly hard on our own homegrown “wish i woulda…” critic mentality types, I can fairly say that we’ve got nothing, absolutely nothing, on how fickled and duplicitous and two faced the British ‘music critics’ are. But we’re getting there kids, we’re getting there….soon we’ll be as shallow and bankrupt of soul as the critics of their own Top of the Pops culture reflects.

    “Hurrah” for big achievements from little men…what would the rest of us bleeting sheep do without these guys around to tell us what to think, what to wear, and who to listen to?

    “Oh COME ON…you KNOW it’s crap! Just admit it…”. That used to be called what it is: coaxing and cajoling. Now it’s ‘critique’ and ‘honesty’.


blog comments powered by Disqus
KROQ Almost Acoustic Christmas 2015
Red Bull Sound Space
Kevin & Bean Podcast

Listen Live