All things Metallica

Required Fields wrote:

Anyone here familiar with Danko Jones?

Take a look at what happened after he heard Lulu...
http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=165083

Canadian rocker Danko Jones has slammed METALLICA's collaboration with Lou Reed, claiming to have put his entire METALLICA collection up for sale after hearing the controversial "Lulu" project.

In a series of tweets over the weekend, Danko offered his opinion on "Lulu", calling it the "Ishtar", "Waterworld" and "Battlefield Earth" of rock 'n' roll. ("Ishtar", "Waterworld" and "Battlefield Earth" are widely considered to be three of the biggest cinematic train wrecks.) His final tweet on the subject reads, "Good morning! Heard METALLICA/Lou Reed album last night. METALLICA collection now for sale. Tweet your $$$."

well thats extreme - even St. Anger is better than Ishtar.

Yea, that seems a bit rash, but that's his business. While I may not like Lulu, I'm still gonna play Ride The Lightning loud & proud.

Quote :

St. Anger is better than Ishtar.

Hmmmmm, that's debateable. I've sat through 'Ishtar' without vomiting out my eyeballs and punching a cat. The same cannot be said for St. Anger.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Yea, that seems a bit rash, but that's his business. While I may not like Lulu, I'm still gonna play Ride The Lightning loud & proud.

Quote :

St. Anger is better than Ishtar.

Hmmmmm, that's debateable. I've sat through 'Ishtar' without vomiting out my eyeballs and punching a cat. The same cannot be said for St. Anger.

considering the actors in Ishtar were at peak of their careers when it came out and metallica had already been on the decline when St. Anger came out, Ishtar is clearly the bigger failure

I actually sat through "Battlefield Earth" a few months ago and I've also seen "Waterworld." But I have more patience for crappy movies than I do for crappy music.

Fat Freddy wrote:

I actually sat through "Battlefield Earth" a few months ago and I've also seen "Waterworld." But I have more patience for crappy movies than I do for crappy music.

wow. you surely do.

exact33 wrote:

Fat Freddy wrote:

I actually sat through "Battlefield Earth" a few months ago and I've also seen "Waterworld." But I have more patience for crappy movies than I do for crappy music.

wow. you surely do.

Never seen "Ishtar" though. So there is some sh*t that even *I* won't eat.

Required Fields wrote:

Anyone here familiar with Danko Jones?

Take a look at what happened after he heard Lulu...
http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=165083

Canadian rocker Danko Jones has slammed METALLICA's collaboration with Lou Reed, claiming to have put his entire METALLICA collection up for sale after hearing the controversial "Lulu" project.

In a series of tweets over the weekend, Danko offered his opinion on "Lulu", calling it the "Ishtar", "Waterworld" and "Battlefield Earth" of rock 'n' roll. ("Ishtar", "Waterworld" and "Battlefield Earth" are widely considered to be three of the biggest cinematic train wrecks.) His final tweet on the subject reads, "Good morning! Heard METALLICA/Lou Reed album last night. METALLICA collection now for sale. Tweet your $$$."

Considering that Danko Jones albums are released straight to the cut out bin, I am sure the poor lad could use the money.

Fat Freddy wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Fat Freddy wrote:

I actually sat through "Battlefield Earth" a few months ago and I've also seen "Waterworld." But I have more patience for crappy movies than I do for crappy music.

wow. you surely do.

Never seen "Ishtar" though. See, there's some sh*t that even *I* won't eat.

it was really bad. nothing is as bad as a movie with jokes that are constantly not funny...

manny wrote:

Considering that Danko Jones albums are released straight to the cut out bin, I am sure the poor lad could use the money.

Yeah, I was going to ask... who the hell is Danko Jones?

He's a Canadian rock musician. He's actually had a few semi-hits up here. Outside of Canada, though, he's not that well known.

Required Fields wrote:

He's a Canadian rock musician. He's actually had a few semi-hits up here. Outside of Canada, though, he's not that well known.

Never heard of him. I'm old and out of the loop.

Fat Freddy wrote:

Required Fields wrote:

He's a Canadian rock musician. He's actually had a few semi-hits up here. Outside of Canada, though, he's not that well known.

Never heard of him. I'm old and out of the loop.

there is a new study out contending that people who are old hog resources from those who are young so send me your cds so I can put them to better use.

exact33 wrote:

there is a new study out contending that people who are old hog resources from those who are young so send me your cds so I can put them to better use.

Nuh-uh, we already had this conversation. You weren't tr00 mettle enough to recognize the sacred arcane steeeeeele of Jan Terri. It is YOU who should be sending ME your CDs.

I'm not into this album, but they can do whatever they want. I remember seeing Waterworld and thinking it was terrible, yet everytime it comes on the television, I sit down and watch it. Go figure.

Joe wrote:

I'm not into this album, but they can do whatever they want. I remember seeing Waterworld and thinking it was terrible, yet everytime it comes on the television, I sit down and watch it. Go figure.

I can't see Kevin Costner in anything anymore without remembering the scene in "Waterworld" where he's peeing into some kind of filtering unit so he can use it for drinking water.

ewww, I forgot about that scene. Dude has made some seriously looong stinkers. Waterworld, The Postman, Wyatt Earp. I liked Dances with Wolves, though.

Focus on Jean Tripplehorn's nude scene in 'Waterworld' instead. Helps make the whole pee-drinking thing a little more tolarable.

Man, I have always dug Waterworld. I don't understand the hate for that movie.

I like this review of Lulu.

From MetalReview.com



Written by Jeremy Witt
Published on 10/22/2011

To say that I don’t “get” Lou Reed would be an understatement. (To say that I don’t like Lou Reed would be a similar understatement, as would saying that I don’t ever want to hear Lou Reed “sing” again in all of my days.) So I admit some journalistic bias up front.

But let’s face it: no matter what Rolling Stone and the Rock’n’Roll Hall Of Fame would have you believe, Lou Reed sucks. I say this knowing that the man has been deemed a legend (largely due the achievements of the Velvet Underground, almost a half-century ago), and I say this knowing that I’ll get comments from irate Pitchfork readers crying foul at my blatant dismissal of all things Lou. But the thing is: I’ve tried to like Lou Reed, and failing that, to understand even the slightest bit of the appeal of Lou Reed. I own probably six Lou Reed records – from best-of’s to alleged classics to his godawful interpretation of Edgar Allan Poe’s The Raven – and that doesn’t include my one Velvet Underground disc. I even watched a concert DVD because a friend of mine told me he wasn’t a fan either but saw Lou live and enjoyed it. (Admittedly, a DVD isn’t a concert, but it was my only option – it’s not like I’m going to pay Lou to come to my house and play for me.)

So, of course, when it was announced that Metallica would be collaborating with Lou, to say that I was skeptical would yet again be an understatement. (“Confused” or “horrified” would be a more apt descriptor, and especially so after it was announced that the result would be an eighty-seven-minute-long album based on a series of German plays from the early 20th century.)

And the funny thing is: Even as much as I knew that Loutallica was going to suck, Lulu caught me by surprise. I expected it to be awful, a disaster, but I figured it would have some redeeming quality somewhere within it. Well, I was half-right.

Put quite simply: Lulu is terrible. But it’s not just terrible – that would be an understatement. It’s unlistenable, unsalvageable, irredeemable; it offers no enjoyment, no sliver of quality, no silver-lining snatch of decency that isn’t immediately squandered by endlessly repeated madman mutterings, by a running time as bloated as later-day Brando, by a lack of remotely interesting arrangements.

Lulu’s biggest problem is that it’s mostly a Lou Reed record – more recent Metallica press releases have effectively confirmed as much. (It’s interesting to note that, while the earliest word from the Metallica camp was enthusiastic about the pairing of these two Hall Of Fame acts, more recent releases have made certain to mention that Lulu is not intended as a new Metallica album.) So the collaboration is lopsided, and Metallica is effectively the backing band here – they plod along beneath Lou’s ranting, with very little to do that adds up to anything that a Metallica fan would want to hear. There are no riffs, really – they only cut loose for a minute or so in “Frustration” (which is a fitting title for anything associated with the Lulu listening experience) and during “Dragon,” which, at eleven minutes in length, would be more accurately spelled “draggin’.” By the time the drifting twenty-minute “Junior Dad” closes the album, assuming you made it that far, any of the scant few melodies that stand out in its chiming chords are too little, too late.

Aside from playing the occasional chug amidst the eighty-seven-minute sea of non-riffs, Hetfield’s involvement consists largely of echoing Lou’s laughable lyrics in his patent snarl – Lou talk-shouts a ridiculous line, and then Hetfield growls it again, behind him. It’s like James has developed some kind of brain-damaged echolalia, just saying what Lou said, but louder, and when the two of them just repeat the same line, back and forth, for minutes on end, to say that it’s tedious would be… well, you know… an understatement.

But for all the mind-numbing droning overlong arrangements and the acceptable-at-best production values, Lulu dies nine hundred of its thousand deaths at the hands of Lou’s alleged poetry. In all of human history, no stick-thin, Patti Smith-worshiping, black-haired and broken-hearted teenager with too many Dylan records and Bukowski books and Fellini films has ever written poetry this terrible. Perhaps these lyrics make more sense given some familiarity with the plays – one would hope so, and I concede that I have not read or seen the Lulu plays – but there’s nothing in Lou’s lyrics that makes me want to change that, that gives any sense of coherent narrative or character development or exposition. It’s all just crazy-homeless-person shouting and muttering, an unending litany of unexplained and unlinked disturbing phrases. Hearing Lou intone “spermless… like a girl…” will haunt me forever. And of course, he says it about thirty times, but at least James has the good sense not to repeat that line – thank God for the little things. Further Lou-musings about being a dog prostitute, about lifting “that little doggie face to a cold-hearted kitten” to “taste what the big dog got,” about cutting off “[his] tits and arms” will provide hours of quotable fun and the potential for endless parodying, and honestly, that’s about the best thing that can come of Lulu. These lines can replace “my lifestyle determines my deathstyle” as the go-to quote for the sound of a once-great metal band disappearing up its own ass.

As it collapses into dust beneath the weight of its own pretentious ox manur, unsupported by anything remotely approaching a decent song, Lulu is a thousand times the disaster that St. Anger was. Lulu is, if not the worst album in the history of metal, easily within the top five. It’s a failure of proportions so epic that it’s almost unfathomable – there are those who will tell you it’s brilliant, fearless, ground-breaking, the result of two legends who’ve earned the right to make art without thought of commercial reception. And I’m here to tell you what you already know: The emperor is naked. Lulu is a worthless piece of sh1t.

1.5/10



Written by Jordan Campbell
Published on 10/22/2011

pork this sh1t.

0/10

Eyesore wrote:

Man, I have always dug Waterworld. I don't understand the hate for that movie.

I only saw it once, but I don't recall it being the trainwreck that everyone said it was.

I think it gets most of its bad rep from the budget side of things. Kevin Costner spent millions and millions on his "vision" and got very little in return. Proportionally speaking of course. $175 million to make, only (yea, only) $88 million in domestic box office returns.

Quote :

It’s a failure of proportions so epic that it’s almost unfathomable – there are those who will tell you it’s brilliant, fearless, ground-breaking, the result of [film legend Kevin Costner] who’s earned the right to make art without thought of commercial reception.

Sounds about right.

I know it's easy (fun too!) for the general populace to bag on Metallica, no matter what they do, but I think this album with Lou is really gonna get them some harsh backlash, even from some of the die-hards.

Metallica's bank account statement will smooth over any harsh backlash.

Only the brand matters to the sheep.

This guy admits his bias upfront, how refreshing!! I will admit that I think the writer is a douchebag and an a$$wipe, if he does not like it fine, but if you don't like it the artist you are reviewing and you have made up your mind before you have listened to one note of music then what the hell is the point?

One does not have to be a Lou Reed fan to appreciate the album or even a Metallica fan, or have any knowledge of the artist involved, but one should review the album fairly without built in prejudice. If you hate it and you come to opinion regarding the album, honestly, fine, it is all subjective anyway.

I have no idea if I will like the album or hate it, I liked what I have heard, so far, but this review sucks a$$ and it gave you no insight to what the album sounds like, I doubt sh!t for brains has ever read Bukowski, watched a Fellini film , and is a complete a$$hole if he thinks Patti Smith and Bob Dylan music is made for teenagers who mope around in black hair. This crotch like just picked names out of 'hat' who feel so called hipsters cream their jeans over and threw there names in here to show how smart he is.

All this review revealed that he hates Lou Reed. The real piece of sh!t is the fact that some a$$hole pays this guy for his opinion and I wasted five minutes of my life reading this steaming pile of sh!t.

manny wrote:

This guy admits his bias upfront, how refreshing!! I will admit that I think the writer is a douchebag and an a$$wipe, if he does not like it fine, but if you don't like it the artist you are reviewing and you have made up your mind before you have listened to one note of music then what the hell is the point?

One does not have to be a Lou Reed fan to appreciate the album or even a Metallica fan, or have any knowledge of the artist involved, but one should review the album fairly without built in prejudice. If you hate it and you come to opinion regarding the album, honestly, fine, it is all subjective anyway.

I have no idea if I will like the album or hate it, I liked what I have heard, so far, but this review sucks a$$ and it gave you no insight to what the album sounds like, I doubt sh!t for brains has ever read Bukowski, watched a Fellini film , and is a complete a$$hole if he thinks Patti Smith and Bob Dylan music is made for teenagers who mope around in black hair. This crotch like just picked names out of 'hat' who feel so called hipsters cream their jeans over and threw there names in here to show how smart he is.

All this review revealed that he hates Lou Reed. The real piece of sh!t is the fact that some a$$hole pays this guy for his opinion and I wasted five minutes of my life reading this steaming pile of sh!t.

I agree with all of this.

And I agree with the reviewer. This album blows.

Eyesore wrote:

manny wrote:

This guy admits his bias upfront, how refreshing!! I will admit that I think the writer is a douchebag and an a$$wipe, if he does not like it fine, but if you don't like it the artist you are reviewing and you have made up your mind before you have listened to one note of music then what the hell is the point?

One does not have to be a Lou Reed fan to appreciate the album or even a Metallica fan, or have any knowledge of the artist involved, but one should review the album fairly without built in prejudice. If you hate it and you come to opinion regarding the album, honestly, fine, it is all subjective anyway.

I have no idea if I will like the album or hate it, I liked what I have heard, so far, but this review sucks a$$ and it gave you no insight to what the album sounds like, I doubt sh!t for brains has ever read Bukowski, watched a Fellini film , and is a complete a$$hole if he thinks Patti Smith and Bob Dylan music is made for teenagers who mope around in black hair. This crotch like just picked names out of 'hat' who feel so called hipsters cream their jeans over and threw there names in here to show how smart he is.

All this review revealed that he hates Lou Reed. The real piece of sh!t is the fact that some a$$hole pays this guy for his opinion and I wasted five minutes of my life reading this steaming pile of sh!t.

I agree with all of this.

And I agree with the reviewer. This album blows.

Sorry for the rant, but at least you gave it a shot before you declared it sucked!