Art Imitating Music

I’ve finally checked out Lou Lou, Loutallica, or whatever you want to call it (actual title: ‘Lulu’)- the ’stranger than fiction’ collaboration between Metallica and Lou Reed. I’ve been hearing what everyone’s been saying about the album- they don’t like it.

Myself? With the exception of a few parts (the riff on track 2, ‘The View,’ for example), upon first listen, I don’t really like it either. But I confess to being fascinated by it.

Now before we go any further, let me just say how much respect I have for the members of Metallica, despite not always agreeing with every group decision. My public comments on the band do not always go over well with their fans, who tend to only see me as a guy from another metal band. But I’m honestly trying to speak purely as a listener and observer, so pretend I’m a journalist for one moment.

Here is one way to view ‘Lulu:’ as an experiment in ‘phenomenology’ much like the Andre The Giant sticker campaign by artist Shepard Fairey. It leaves you asking questions like What is it? Is it cool? Are we just not getting it? Who knows? Either way, it’s got everyone talking and challenging their thinking.

Another way to view Lulu is the type of album that very few musical acts get to do- the 1% or less who reach that highest level, commercially and financially. These albums can only be done by acts who maintain their own creative control and feel the artistic impulses to challenge the very system that put them where they are. With Metallica’s legacy secured, you can say they’ve earned the right to have a little fun and prove that they can do whatever the fuck they want to, as long as it’s done strategically (very wise that an ‘official’ Metallica album is planned, soon to follow).

And now I’ll speak as a fellow musician: As part of the other 99% – far from wealthy, but grateful to have carved out a comfortable living based solely on playing and composing- I honestly don’t know what it’s like to be in that kind of top tier position. I can only imagine the artistic inclinations I might feel if I were. So it feels only fair to withhold judgement as a musician and place ‘Lulu’ in a proper historical context, with other iconic artists who have thrown their fans for a loop (in some cases, quite literally, as you’ll see).

In 1968, John Lennon, still a Beatle and arguably the most towering figure in popular music and culture, collaborated with avant-garde conceptual artist Yoko Ono (his future wife) to release ‘Unfinished Music No.1: Two Virgins.‘ The album was unlike any other by a rock artist at the time: it consisted of tape loops, instrumental noises, random conversation and other indecipherable sounds, almost tribal in nature, with no song structure, chords or melody; a pure sonic collage. The album’s shock value was enhanced by its cover art, which included full frontal photos of John and Yoko, stark naked.

In the mid-70’s, a similarly defiant recording- Lou Reed’s own feedback fest, a loop layered, distorted enhanced by various tape speeds, brought to mind a traffic jam on mars. It was entitled “Metal Machine Music.” This album cost Reed, the leader of the hugely successful Velvet Underground, many fans and much of his credibility. Decades later, ‘Metal Machine Music’ would be considered groundbreaking and influential, especially among more ambient, noise influenced musicians such as Sonic Youth and Nine Inch Nails .

One of the most influential, respected and commercially successful jazz guitarists of our time (and a personal hero of mine), Pat Metheny, did his own aggressive, loop-driven ‘noise’ album in the mid- 90’s, one which critics have demolished and fans have begged him to disown: ‘Zero Tolerance For Silence.’ In fairness, this album is not without its share of discernible melodies, but they are far from what fans had come to know from Pat Metheny’s albums- flawlessly executed and polished- it sounds more like something you’d expect from Keith Richards on acid.

Before all of that, a similar statement had been made in the classical world, using the complete opposite approach. It was famously created by composer/pianist John Cage (a frequent collaborator of Yoko Ono’s), who released “4:33,” a ‘piece’ which consists of nothing but four minutes and thirty three seconds of silence. That’s right- a musical composition that consists of no music.

Obviously, Lulu differs from these earlier projects in a couple senses: 1 it consists of distinguishable musical compositions. 2 It is not a revolt against the artist’s established sound- Metallica is playing riffs that are ‘Metallica’ like (at least in the post-thrash ‘millennial’ Metallica sense), and Lou Reed’s Shatner-esque recitations of lyrics inspired by a 19th century German impressionistic play sound Lou Reed-like enough. But compared to what fans expect from a recording with the name ‘Metallica’ on the cover, it’s as radical a departure as any of these other albums.

Lulu is to be taken as a modern art project, not a ‘Metallica album.’ And while it is difficult to find two entities with less in common than heavy metal and modern art, there is a member of Metallica who clearly defies this, who represents a common link between Motorhead and MOMA: Lars Ulrich.

An art based conversation I had with Lars backstage at VH1Classic’s That Metal Show, where I had the honor to appear with him as guest guitarist on the season 8 Finale, (Full Episode Here) confirmed something I’ve long suspected: Lars Ulrich is first and foremost, an artist. Although his public persona focuses on him being the drummer/founder of the mighty metal titans, offstage, he exists as much in the art world as the metal world; an expert with a keen eye, knowledge and awareness that would rival more stereotypical connoisseurs of paint and sculpture. That Lars would be interested in a collaboration with Lou Reed is not surprising in the least. Lars made headlines for amassing a healthy collection of paintings by the late Jean-Michel Basquiat, a protege of pop-art pioneer Andy Warhol. Lou Reed, as the leader of the Velvet Underground, was managed by none other than Warhol himself.

Lulu, in a strange way, represents Metallica’s own version of ‘Metal Machine Music,’ the title of which is a link in the puzzle, only enhancing the art factor of the whole project.

I predict the next Metallica record will be a big sigh of relief to fans, just as Lennon, Reed and Metheny all returned to a sound that was more familiar to their fans and Cage returned to creating actual sound. No, it won’t be the return of their ‘Master Of Puppets’ era sound that some are always clamering for, but it will be along the lines of the acceptable ‘Death Magnetic’ perhaps even stronger, as the band is building off a very healthy period in its career.

Projects like ‘Lulu’ exist to challenge the norm and can only be pulled off by mega-successful acts at the top of their genre with a heightened artistic awareness. The are enjoyable and admirable purely as phenomena to be pondered, observed and discussed rather than listened to. They leave hardcore fans horrified at worst, scratching their heads at best.

‘Two Virgins,’ ‘Metal Machine Music,’ ‘Zero Tolerance For Silence,’ ‘4:33′ and now ‘Lulu.’ Important career milestones? Absolutely. Must have recordings for hardcore collectors? Without a doubt. Worth repeating listenings? Absolutely not.

So is Lulu a success? That depends how you define it.

As a ‘Metallica album,’ especially when compared to the classic ‘Ride The Lightning’ and ‘Master Of Puppets,’ it seems to be generally agreed upon that it doesn’t belong in the same bin. The sales figures already can’t compete with the rest of the catalog. In fact, as this is being written, there is news that Lulu has slipped off the Billboard 200 after just a few weeks- unheard of for Metallica.

But when compared to the work of artists like Warhol, Shepard Fairey and others, as well as the level of the aforementioned albums by Lennon/Ono, Reed, Metheny and Cage, Lulu makes sense; a work of to be appreciated like an odd installation in an art museum, one which you stop to look at but probably wouldn’t keep in your own house, unless you have eccentric tastes. It’s modern art removed from the museum and placed out in the world via a previously unimaginable combination of elements.

Think about it: Lou Reed and the world’s biggest heavy metal band get together, bond over German expressionism, create an album that is difficult to digest and release it to the world? If that’s not art, I don’t know what is.

  • Mike Altrin
    I think of Lulu as art. It uses metaphore and sonic power to reveal something of the everpresent mystery of life. It's not pretty. It's challenging and risky, like a plunge into the abyss. Art usually tends to be like that. I bow to Lou and Metallica. Their album filled my heart with soul.
  • Goaitsen
    Great view. I totally agree.
    Goaitsen
  • Jeff reding
    Brilliantly spoken!!
  • AlexSkolnick
    Thanks!
  • Josh
    I envisioned Hetfield polishing his shotgun collection and punching Lars in the stomach again after I read this.  Nice perspective though Alex.
  • AlexSkolnick
    From what I've heard, James is !00% behind this project and a big fan of Lou Reed (not sure if he was back in the day).
  • Kathy Marcarelli
    I really wanted to like Lulu.  I am actaully a fan of both Metallica and Lou Reed.  I've tried to listen to it several times, hoping it would grow on me, but it's just not happening.  Expressionism is like that though.  Some people will see value in it, others won't.  After I listened to Lulu, I started thinkig about Jackson Pollock.  I like some expressionist art, but I never cared for him despite his popularity.  To me his work always just looked like splatters of paint.  I couldn't find any deeper meaning.  I feel the same way about Lulu.  It's a big paint splatter.  I do respect Metallica for taking the chance though.  They had to know they would get heat from fans.  The same fans that still bitch because they cut their hair.


  • AlexSkolnick
    I don't necessarily subscribe to everything the band has done. But damn, do they have balls.
  • AlexSkolnick
    Good for you for not jumping on the bandwagon and trashing it immediately, like so many.  I still can't say I 'like' it as a something to put on and groove to... but it has grown on me a bit. I've enjoyed examining it publicly and sharing that process with others. I've since changed my initial description from 'almost unlistenable' to 'difficult to digest.'
  • andrew
    I'll be honest, the first time I heard the view, I immediatly shut off the computer it was so bad. But after reading a bunch of these reviews, I decided to give it another listen with more of an open mind and thought that it was ok and it was relevant to the story it was trying to tell. It was slow, dark, painful and all round negative but I'm pretty sure that what it was trying to portray. I've come to the realisation that this album is supposed to be disturbing just like the play. Will I own this album? Definatly not but it is an interesting one, maybe one I'd analyse in an english, It'd be much better than "The Catcher in the Rye". I find that people are using stereotypes and pointless comments and judgements a little too much in their arguments, yes I do agree that metal heads are closed minded like many say, I know I am even though I try not to be, but who isn't things like these are all about taste, if you like it, you like it, if you don't, then you don't, there's really no need for people to go on bashing others due to their personal preferences.
  • Alex
    I agree that there are some very close-minded metalheads out there, but people do change. And no matter what anyone says, it was extremely bold of those guys to do this album and that same boldness is what created those few Metallica albums that all their fans can agree on.
  • Matt A
    Great read and an interesting take on this album and what it's all about!  I felt I had to post my perspective on this album as I am one of the few who actually really like this album.  I am a long-time Metallica fan and especially love their thrash albums from the 80s, but I also like all their material, except some songs off the Loads and St Anger.  However, upon first listen, this album was very confusing to me.  I wasn't expecting a Metallica album as this is not.  But, Lou Reed's poetic, not really singing, caught me off guard, as I was trying to enjoy the music.  So, I put on headphones and listened again, just listening to the music itself and WOW, there are a lot of great parts in here that you could build songs around, but some areas were disjointed and sounded more like noise.  However, after reading about the story of Lulu, and what it's all about, and listening again, I grew to appreciate the brilliance of this project.  It is truly a masterpiece that most don't get upon first listen but over time, will be considered as such I believe.  When you actually "listen" to this album and think about the story of Lulu, hear the lyrics of Lou Reed (brilliant lyrics I must say), and then listen to the music as played by Metallica behind the story of Lulu...WOW!  The music, although it is not your normal song structure, fits the story like a glove.  Metallica goes outside their comfort zone and just lives in the moment and creates these musical landscapes to fit the lyrics of Lulu.  It's an amazing atmosphere and based on where we are in the story, the music does a great job of creating the mood and atmosphere to reflect the story quite well!  So, yes, it is art!  I used to be a strict so-called "metalhead" but I am so glad that as I got older, I started to expand my musical tastes.  Go in with an open mind, read the story behind Lulu, read the lyrics and just listen and drown yourself in the atmosphere.  And when you do, you will too hopefully one day realize the brilliance behind it!
  • Alex
    I'm still not sure it's a masterpiece, but only time will tell. It's certainly one of the most interesting recorded projects to happen in a long time!
  • Scionmage
    Having heard a significant amount of negative coverage about the album, I decided to have a listen....for those that haven't heard it all, check it out here - http://www.loureedmetallica.co... .

    I do listen to a what I think is a reasonably random selection of music, and I'm confused.  I'm not sure whether it is meant to be as disconnected as it seems on a first listen.  Some of the tracks sound as though anything up to three completely unrelated recordings have been patched on top of each other, regardless of length, tempo or style.  Others sound as though they were written with a common aim in mind. 

    Do I like it?  In places.  Could it have been done better?  Indeed.

    Should this necessarily been pushed as a Lou Reed / Metallica work?  Honestly, I'm not sure.  Personally, I would have expected the album to have been released under a collaborative umbrella name, allowing for potential future collaboration work.  As things stand, it won't be allowed to stand on it's own, instead it will be compared against either Lou Reed's or Metallica's own work, which I think will do it a disservice.

    It is what it is, whether we like or understand it or not.

    Your post is an attempt to see it for what it is, and it makes for interesting reading, as do the comments from previous readers.  The one thing we can probably all agree on, is that it generates a strong opinion.

  • Alex
    This is an honest, well spoken comment that clearly expresses your viewpoint, thanks.
  • Newisgood
    Perhaps you listen to too much heavy metal, Scion. Metal has very little contrast or dimension. Artistically limited and unqualified losers make these comments and it lets me know heavy metal is long dead. they just erect the ballsless carcass out for affirmation when it is required. The wall was erected, the wall stand and those who continue to patronize it will......expecting nor more, no less. The 'heavy metal community' is trodden, stylized and non open to anything which challenges their aural fashions. And through every fault of their own metal heads don't know how to process much of anything else, apparently. The truth? Lulu is a cohesive heavy metal poetry album which uses some space. Refreshing. Lou knows exactly how to undermine the sic-synch'd nature of heavy metal -- working his own pentameter into the rhythms. It is a masterpiece. When all men are truly slaves they will begin to appreciate it. Till then we who enjoy it have to bear the unjustified criticisms of culturally limited losers like yourself who probably don't even know who Hawkwind is.
  • Lovelies
    If you don't really like it why did you bother writing a review in the first place? To show off to all your fans just how articulate and 'open minded' you are? There's so much going on with this CD that to state, "I don't like it" makes me think you should be given another CD to review so we could all say, "THERE now...MIKEY likes it". Typical of your genre. The word, I believe, is 'classicism. Can't say your review surprises me. Par for the course. For truly open minded and adventurous listeners, this review is much more generous.......without the historical, almost collegiate, baggage.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/ent...

  • Kathy M
    A review is always the opinion of the person writing the review.  This is Alex's blog, so what he reviews on here is his business.   Alex is a musician and he is also an equal contemporary of Metallica.  That makes him more qualified to review this than you, I or some music critic.  Lulu is a very controversial recording and I for one was very interested in what he had to say.
  • Alex
    Despite not liking it initially, it has grown on me, as I suspected it might.  My purpose of writing this post was twofold:  A.  to capture the initial reaction B. a feeling that there might be more to this album than the barrage of
    insults it was garnering ('This sucks' 'Pure crap' etc...etc..) and felt people needed to hear a different perspective.

         I
    felt this perspective might be appreciated and for the most part, it has been.

          I appreciate you sharing the Atlantic review despite your unnecessary hostility.
  • Ian Hodgkinson
    "Think about it: Lou Reed and the world’s biggest heavy metal band get together, bond over German expressionism, create an almost unlistenable album and release it to the world? If that’s not art, I don’t know what is."

    The problem with this approach to art is that it confuses audience participation with artistic merit; and in doing so encourages artists to increasingly waste their unique gift of art, because they don't need to apply it at all... An enthusiastic amateur in the audience will always see great art in what ever is put before them, because what they will witness is EXACTLY concordant with their own inspirations and understanding of art, because that's exactly where the content is actually coming from.

    And we live in an era where we are encouraged to have an opinion on, and believe we have a right to expound upon almost everything. In this sense, Lulu is as many have commentated so far, no more "art" than absolutely anything else you can name. "Real Housewives of Beverly Hills" is art, because people cannot look away, and cannot resist commentating on it. And some of the commentary is really, really good, apposite, powerful... not because of the original product, but because some of the commentators themselves are. And would be irrespective of the program.

    But that's not why we need artists; their role is to inspire us, teach us, open the doors to something we ourselves fall short of for now... . And that goes even for bands like Metallica. As a teenager, it was their awesome power, tightness, phrasing and social consciousness that appealed to me. Could I have done that? No! Do I wish I could? Yes! Did it inspire me to hone my own talents and open up such evocative emotional doors myself somehow? Certainly! That's true art. It opens the door to the transcendent.

    And where "Metal Machine Music" differs from "Lulu" in turn is that the first was a genuine artistic experimentation in new, potentially powerful techniques, later proven by the artists that followed. And Lulu most assuredly is not. It pioneers no new style, instrument or technique. It's unlistenable because it's a shambolic vocal performance from Reed, whilst Metallica pound out half-baked jam sessions and shout about the infamous table. The table! The table! The table is not art, it's not edifying or inspiring... it's embarrassing.

    We can think about the bravery in the act of releasing such an album yes; but again, they could have put anything out and got the same quality of debate... which in turn further obscures the Artist themselves; are they being deliberately terrible, or do they no longer care? Can they even create art anymore?. I've not watched "Some Kind of Monster", and Metallica's music lost me around the Black album era (although I saw them tour it at Sheffield Arena that year); I know James and Lars now through the Napster debacle, through critical dislike of Load/Reload and hatred of St.Anger and today because of Lulu; voices that agree with my own suspicions, justify me in thinking I don't NEED to listen to Metallica any more. And such criticism manages to out shout all the reasonable voices like on this thread. Is that fair? Is it an accurate representation of the musicians in Metallica? Who knows any more? Who CAN know? If they'd put out another Master Of Puppets, it would be a moot point; great art defends itself, and through it, justifies and praises the artist. But putting out a Lulu leaves us with a Lulu, and what ever the audience is now muttering they think it tells us about the artist...

    Is this what we want our art and our artists to really become? The ID of the non-artist is often a many bittered thing, and empty art will often be nothing more than this.
  • Nutsforloutallica
    "And we live in an era where we are encouraged to have an opinion on, and
    believe we have a right to expound upon almost everything. In this
    sense, Lulu is as many have commentated so far, no more "art" than
    absolutely anything else you can name. "Real Housewives of Beverly
    Hills" is art, because people cannot look away, and cannot resist
    commentating on it. And some of the commentary is really, really good,
    apposite, powerful... not because of the original product, but because
    some of the commentators themselves are. And would be irrespective of
    the program."

       This paragraph epitomizes everything i despise about metal aficionados. You are truly elitist because you set a barre gaiged by distinctions, if not sheer technicality. You think you know it all. And your [so] pompous that you think you know what good and bad art is. Early Metallica did not inspire ME. I plopped Master of Puppets in my car cassette player and knew right away what that was.it didn't interest or concern me. I'd heard brilliant bands use metal tones and make far more original music. Live skull, Rat at Rat R, Mighty Sphincter, Die Kreutzen, Ruin etc.
       I enjoy a lot of the free sax like noises Kirk and James coax out of their guitars on Lulu as well as the morphing stereo harmonies. This master work is against the very grain of conventional metal aesthetic.The music is borne from feeling. Nature, intuition and guttural male sexual drive is directly manifested in the music. The sexual dynamic which lies at the underbelly of metal culture is addressed explicitly through the agitprop of Lulu.
       Art should be unique, come by mistake, breathe and flow. Heavy metal is stiff and anal -- riffs that are half step assembly line sequences architecturally mirroring the linear minds that made it. Linearity as power? As art? I find Lulu awesome exhibiting power, tightness, phrasing and social consciousness without the prosyltizing posturing of early Metallica. How hypocritical to sing about masters and puppets when your wearing the same hairstyle, same stitched-at ankle-by-metal-bimbo jeans, using the same guitar tone and same chordal and moduar ideas that every other metal band was using?
       I despise the way you people (yes you people, as in cultists) talk down about Lulu, even determining it to be barely listenable, when people like myself welcome a sonic stake through the heart of a bloated and conceited institution. Having the aesthetic acumen and discipline to play "Pumping Blood" (for instance) requires just as much 'talent' as any of the most complex metal drills known to mankind. This would dispel your notion that, "an enthusiastic amateur in the audience will always see great art in
    what ever is put before them".
        You think you know it all? I'll blow you away with half my fingers missing. Music is MY Life and I appreciate the contributions of Loutallica. Don't dis them and don't dis people who may prefer them greatly over Metallica. It's far more interesting and compelling to my ears. And far more honest. Metal musicians generally lack groove. Not on Lulu. Listen to "Iced Honey". Great rock and roll. Love James 'natural' vocals. The albums about feeling and lies diametrically at odds with what 99% of metal is about.
        Lulu should be piped through intercoms througout every shopping mall, supermarket, pornshop, catholic and parochial school. Nonstop. Lulu is about every mans reason for existing. Lulu is the reason metal even exists. Every marriage, every divorce, every last dying word from a man whose last years were spent jerking off to porn sites which ridiculed the size of his penis and trolling Craigslist to be extorted in the name of love. You want to hear the truth straight from the decrepid smoldering mouth of the decaying master? Heed the voice of Lou Reed, dry and shameless, on this very naked album that Loutallica should be VERY proud of
  • Ian Hodgkinson
    I have to admit, I literally sat staring at this response for nearly half an hour, before I could come to terms with the sheer absence of self awareness or sense displayed in this rage filled word salad apparently dragged over 30 years of personal grudges...

    How do you reply to someone who can't even keep their own argument coherent for 6 small paragraphs without having a directly hypocritical or self debasing claim just a few lines away? Who claims, whilst decrying supposed elitism based on technique, to have "blow you away with half my fingers missing" expertise whilst at the exact same time it seems never having actually read the unsubtle lyrics to "Master of Puppets" (it's about drug addiction not conformity), and then ends his green inked letter with the claim that "Lulu should be piped.... Nonstop", because it's "every mans reason for existing". Good to know he's not an elitist intolerant lover of conformism then eh?!

    How can you try and reason with someone who is so completely lacking in higher cognitive functions that they keep quoting
    "an enthusiastic amateur in the audience will always see great art in what ever is put before them" and not only do they not stop the assumptions inside their own head long enough to try and cogitate on what "enthusiastic" must mean in context, but reply not just enthusiastically, but with frothing and committed rage themselves that my argument must be wrong because "Someone put Lulu in front of me, and I thought it was great!" 

    Really. What CAN you say to that?!

    You could spend HOURS de constructing this nonsense for the mind boggling idiocy within it; but ... and here comes the catch again, that wouldn't mean the original was great art now would it?  It would just be showcasing MY skills in pulling it apart.

    And now here comes the absolute gut wrenching kicker; It still could be an attempt at art, I suppose. It could be someone trying out Trolling Performance Art... And I'd like to hope that it was, because think about the idea of a genuinely somewhere near 50+ man being so consumed by his own inner demons that he drags them across the decades and allows it to befuddle his mind so badly today online, well... it's heart breaking isn't it? 

    Now to apply the claim Alex made earlier, we're still talking about it, right?! He's made a splash, right? But then if we're allowing art to be defined by the level of public spectacle and/or response, we're going back to the days when people would pay money to go and laugh at the inmates of Bedlam Asylum and poke them with sticks. That's not an analogy. I mean it.

    Think about it; perhaps this is Dave Mustaine posting? And James Hetfield kicked his dog 30 years ago, oooh he hated that 80s Metallica! But they're all best friends now! Loutallica Rocks! However... Dave Mustaine also has his output with Megadeth to be proud of. So should that be what defines him as an artist, or shall we go watch YouTube videos of him getting weepy and petulant about Metallica's success and laugh at how pathetic he looks in those instead? What is it most people actually DO, in fact? What are YouTube threads really like, with the millions of comments and page hits? What have I done with our very own little NUTSDave above for that matter?

    So I repeat again, just putting anything out, and getting people talking about it is NOT art. And never should be. It's navel gazing at best, and Bedlam abusing at worst. As a wise man once said; "Shut up and play!" And judge their art on what and how well they play.

    Or not, in the case of Lulu.

  • Knockknockknockknockknockknock
    Dear, Contextually Well Intended. People have the right to interpret your words as they appear to them. As you are (judging from judging your literary skills) a participating member of society, I assume you possess a 'conscious' and 'subconscious'. the language you use, therefore, can stand separately from what you intended to say. But your context is clear. When you use a term like 'enthusiastic amateur' one immediately thinks that you have a clear delineation in your mind concerning what constitutes a professional from who is a 'hack'. The American fixation with 'talent' at the expense of authenticity (relative to individuality) puts left brainers like yourself in the position to talk down from a pulpit. "What pulpit" you say. Exactly. You just don't fucking get it. You know too much. Better for you.
         Spiritual and artistic amateurs make lot's of money these days....especially singers who look really good and sound even better through a vocoder. Welcome to the new reality talent show. Those who need to express themselves outside the envelopes of what has supposedly been decided for them are to be discouraged and humiliated for using music to express themselves. Music should use people and Lulu should be discussed in purely intellectual terms because we, as contributors to the metal community, don't feel a thing. The old faggots voice sucks. It doesn't sound good. Metallica are not tight enough This wouldn't have happened if Cliff were still around. We all have something to learn from it anyway. Let's talk about it.
  • Cosmicmother
    For all of your boast-worthy cognitive abilities it's amazing how
    palpably you lack the ability to freely associate. True mind of an
    artist. You didn't understand a word Nutsforloutallica was trying to communicate. Your so narrow minded that the idea of Lulu actually being art is benign to you. So "Master of Puppets" refers to drug addiction. Thanks for setting the metaphor straight. Now it has a whole new meaning. A bunch of deeply insecure fascists needed heavy drugs because their Identity Music was no longer fulfilling, like their one-dimensional friends. Big fucking difference. Lulu means several things or nothing. To you it's 'trolling'.......to Us it's absurd your even using the word to describe an artist. Like they have nothing better to do. You insult Loutallica when you assume that an agitprop that's artistic/compelling can't have more merit than 'art' that is formulaic/pandering. As for him Nutsforloutallica playing circles around you, well he probably can....but they'll probably run a little slower than your used to. Women like it that way.
  • Nutsforloutallica
    Word salad, huh. Ironic. Grudges? Who needs to hold them when you stick to your own. Incoherent? Fill in the blanks -- that's why they're there. Imagination. Hypocritical? I think not. My stars are perfectly aligned. My take on you is your a typical left brain met fanatic whose feathers were ruffled by my obviously higher intelligence and sense of real art. Point made : it's a new world and not a right world, requiring wrong things. What you perceive as hypocritical is just the duality manifest in all that Satan is showing us. To be sure, I could care less about your heroes because they were no Beatles. They were not even Mighty Sphincter. I could care less about Dave Mustaine. I could care less about metal. If I could afford to hire Loutallica to play at my upcoming wedding I would. I'd enjoy hanging out with them and talking about art, growing up, possibilities, a long winded culture of transparent criticism and how enjoyable music is when you sacrifice a little. Freedom is only the luxury of the upper class when they can eat sashimi between takes. Only in [this] perspective are Metallica fans half right. They worked their asses off making machine music to be able to do that, so more power to them. Most [my] interesting artist friends are poor.
  • Alex
    Wow, I was unaware that there was a whole new debate raging in my absence. I see points by the two prime contenders (Ian and Nutsforloutallica) that I agree and disagree with. However, I'm going to have to stay out of this thread for now, as my time is very limited at the moment. Just want to say thank you guys/girls for sharing your thoughts here and hope you continue to do so in future posts.
  • Goaitsen van der Vliet
    Totally disagree with Lulu being 'almost unlistenable'. Maybe you should bother to listen a couple of times more closely. I am sure the album will last as a very strong poetical and musical statement. It's the only album I played since it came out. First time, I must admit, I hated most of it. But some parts had struck me. So I had to hear them again. And again. Starting with Little Dog (astonishing), Iced Honey (a flavour of Velvet) and Junior Dad (its time with the slackening extra ticks, the gracious guitar lines, Reeds performance, which is much more melodic and intense than most reviewers get). Now I am definitely hooked. I enjoy most of it, many parts still giving me goose bumps. Junior Dad drones on for 20 minutes, but I like every second of it.The NRC (a Dutch quality paper) called Lulu the worst rock album ever. They must have lost their way. It may not be the best one either, but it will survive. Time will tell. And by the way: Lou Reed is the best lyricist in rock music.
  • AlexSkolnick
    I'm planning to give the album some more listens. And you may be right-if I were to write this post over, I might use a term like 'difficult to digest' in place of 'unlistenable.'

         > The NRC (a Dutch quality paper) called Lulu the worst rock album ever. They must have lost their way. It may not be the best one either, but it will survive. Time will tell.

           I think you're right about that. They (the paper you mention) are not even trying to understand it from any perspective.
  • Mike ryg
    beautifully written, I concur.
  • AlexSkolnick
    Thanks everyone for all the commentary on this post (a record for the SkolNotes blog). Now before anyone decides I'm some sort of serious or snooty art type: let me point out that I do see plenty to make fun of in the art world. These things are very well encapsulated in the comedy 'Untitled,' which does to art what 'This Is Spinal Tap' did to hard rock. Highly recommended.  http://untitled-themovie.com/
  • Austin
    I enjoy this, Its great its different, its challenging the norm. I understand why people dont like it, theyre expecting puppets or lightning, which they wont get. It also shows me how close minded everyone is, i mean its all an opinion. And Alex you are right, to define  it has amazing, and at times its hard to listen to but these guys are so far in their career they can throw curveballs at their fans and if they like it, who cares. Someone will. I did, I enjoy when bands try new things, like Load and Reload, some liked it, some didnt. But it seems like everyone just does not let bands change their sound or do what they want. But nonetheless this is probably the best review of this piece of 'art' ive seen all across the internet. and you are right Metal machine Music did inspire a ton of electronic and ambient artists, ive listened to metal machine Music, I think its cool. But also Metallica has never really done a collaborative album, and it is very weird to think "Metallica and Lou Reed?" It is crazy, but hey I got a lot of respect for Metallica, they are legends in their own right, I was actually glad a real musician commented on this album.
  • AlexSkolnick
    Glad you like the review. I was getting tired of everyone bashing and saying 'this sucks!' etc... without putting into any context whatsoever. Not a big fan of Load and Reload personally, they felt almost too accessible to me somehow. But by doing this album, which is a curveball if there ever was one, I seem to relate to what they're going for, even though I'm not going to put it on the way I would the early albums.
  • Austin
    Well I am a big fan of load and reload, but those albums arent for everyone, since they tried something new. And not many particurlarly liked it. But its all opinion,  I was sick of hearing people saying it sucked, and 'this is shit' 'lou reed killed metallica' blah blah. Im glad you put some insight from a musicians point of view, not just an average metalhead on the street or critic, this is from a musicians point of view. I was very pleased with this, Though I have seen some good reviews on the interent their rare, because no one gets what this album is about, but its all opinion.
  • Logan Brown8
    I agree 100 percent Alex, as far as music goes it would be an understatement to say that the album was lack, but as art in all sense of the word it deeply touches me and I find it truly beautiful. I look forward to reading more of your blogs Alex, from what I've already read we seem to share common thoughts and opinions on a lot of things.
  • AlexSkolnick
    I believe you may be the first to use the word 'beautiful' to describe the album, but viewing it purely as an art project, anything is possible. Glad you're enjoying the posts, Logan. Welcome aboard.
  • K H Brown
    Besides Berg's opera, I'd recommend the Pabst film Pandora's Box as another useful intertext. John Zorn did a Lulu project News for Lulu, of jazz standards with stripped down instrumentation: http://www.allaboutjazz.com/ph...
  • AlexSkolnick
    Great recommendations. Somehow I'm not surprised that John Zorn has ventured into Lulu territory. He's someone that would shock audiences if he did anything remotely accessible (I recommend people check out his 'Naked City' project, with the warning that it's not for everyone).
  • Lisa
    I am very curious about this album with all the buzz about it, but hesitant to give it a listen until I am in a certain frame of mind. I find this with a lot of music. While metal and rock are my mainstays (I grew up on Kiss, having been introduced to them at the age of seven by my uncle), I do venture out of those genres, but it happens when the mood calls for it. If I try to listen to the blues when I'm not in the mood, I don't *feel* it. I think if I listened to this album when I was in the mood for something more traditional, the experience would be lost. It's kind of like Christmas music: How many people listen to it in June?
  • AlexSkolnick
    Not sure how anyone can listen to Xmas music in June, either (but know some who do). Maybe I'm just sensitive, but I really have to be in the right mood for different types of music- sometimes it's affected by time of year but more often, it's affected by time of day. In fact, I wrote a post on this very subject a while back entitled 'Morning Music/Evening Music'   http://skolnotes.blogspot.com/...
  • Lisa
    Thanks for directing me to this post. To add to it further, I believe some music to be seasonal beyond Christmas, as well as time of day. For example, I crave Seasons In The Abyss in the hotness of summer. Extreme's "Color Me Blind" from their third album is perfect in the dark morning of a star-filled sky. Then of course, Rob Zombie's Hellbilly Deluxe is Halloween personafied.
    My long drive to work in the wee morning hours allows for another layerof music: Listening without visual stimulus. It gets me closest to it without actually having played it myself. And really heavy music at that time CAN get you motivated to handle the stresses of the work day you know are inevitable.
    So, what time of day for lulu?
  • Alberto
    Hi Alex, you're one of the best guitarrist of this planet, maybe far and beyond too. I'm a huge, huge fan of Metallica, and this proyect doesn't change my respect and love for the band. If the people don't like, no problem, don't buy it. I not interest by the moment, to purchase this record, but who knows, in twenty years the album become a icon for some generations of musicians and artists.
  • AlexSkolnick
    That's right, no one is being forced to listen to it. In 20 years, it may be considered 'iconic' or a 'failed experiment,' but I have a feeling it will be respected either way.
  • Citybonn
    Thanks, Alex, for probably putting more thought  into this creation than the artists themselves did.  I think it's worthy of mentioning that Lulu is far more Reed's vision than it was Metallica's.  If I read one more interview in which Hammett states, "Lou doesn't like solos..." 

    However unlistenable as Lulu is, I sincerely hope that Metallica doesn't come out at some point in the future and state that it was a mistake on their part to release it.  As a music lover, I really, really hate when artists do that.  Artists never know what will resonate with fans (if they did, they'd never release a poor selling album, right?), and for fear of sounding melodramatic, something in me dies when a musician verbalizes dislike for a particular song or album of theirs that I love.  Examples of this include Mustaine's views on "Risk" and, more recently, members of Lamb of God have verbally bashed, to some extent, their '06 release, "Sacrament."  I like songs from both albums, especially Sacrament.  Besides the disappointment I feel when artists bash their own work, I'm suspicious of their motives for doing so.  Do they really hate this work, and if so, why did they release it?  For commercial purposes only?  Or are they just trying to win back fans who verbalized dislike for it in the hopes fans won't penalize them by boycotting future works of theirs?  Either explanation doesn't wash with me.

    Metallica - you produced Lulu.  Stand by it.  Own it.  Now move on.
  • AlexSkolnick
    >If I read one more interview in which Hammett states, "Lou doesn't like solos..." 

        I remember reading that in the Velvet Underground, they had a rule that no one was allowed to play a 'blues lick.' This turned me off from them at the time, but now, I see where they were coming from, at least for their own music.

        I agree Metallica/Reed shouldn't ever come out against it and doubt they will (although you never know, one could say he didn't think it was a good idea). Ringo Starr has expressed reservations about the White Album (the double album, the white cover, the experimental tracks 'Revolution 9' etc...). But everyone else, McCartney especially, stands behind it. As a fan, I can't imagine it any differently, but I can see it must have been very radical for the time.

         With Testament, some of us have expressed reservations about the production on certain albums, but rarely the songs.
  • Royettinger
    That was a fantastic review, Alex. Much respect to you for taking the time and writing such a supportive commentary in the name of art.

    I think the easiest thing to say is what an awful album Lulu is, But trying to really understand what it tries to achive is a whole different story. I agree with those who claim that Lou Reed and Metallica totally sound like two seperate entities moshed together in a very unnatural way, but while most people see this as a major flaw, i actually think of it as a very interesting, unique and unorthodox form of art which serves the sole purpose of reflecting the nature and spirit of the play. The album maintains consistency with its own asthetic approach and its own logic. It doesn't follow any set of rules and this is what art should be all about.

    For me, Lulu feels very disjointed and fragmented: The lyrics are awkward, disconnected and self-contradictory ( "I want so much to hurt you/ i want you as my wife"), the mix in the album emphasizes the distance between Lou and Metallica, even the limbless Lulu figure on the cover - all of this delivers a great sense of dissonance throughout the album.
     
     People should understand that this is not a regular riff-driven Metallica album but rather a concept-driven one. Here the music serves the concept unlike most metal albums in which lyrics plays only secondary role. Hence, if, for example, you pay more attention to the Lulu character, her psychology, her self-loathing and the impossible abusive relations she has with the men in the play, then musically, the connection between lou and Metallica starts to make alot more sense.
  • Multiculteralbuffetday
    Why do connoisseurs of metal have to be spoken down to like petulant 5th graders who have a penchant for bullying? I'm sorry. It's like you people have no brains. Your like cartoon enthusiasts who cringe when they see some rather good impressionistic art.....or cubism, or montage or surrealism. Or, in this case, brutal realism. The fact that people within the cracks of society who have little in common interest-wise and still manage to create meaningful things is, in itself, brutally realistic. And your claim that  'the music is disjointed' (which it is not) only illustrates your inability to comprehend very much that even subtly defies metal protocol. Are you people [that] anal?
           A few years ago I had to defend myself in court and my girlfriends brother, a heavy metal enthusiast, defended me. A month or two later I noticed I was being trolled all over the internet by someone who was taking my pictures and scribbling homophobic remarks on them, denouncing my talent and going on drunken rampages about what a self-indulgent shit-spewing delusional musician I was. Anyway, to make my point, two years down the line I found out that the person trolling me was (ironically) my lawyer. Evidently he didn't like me and resented representing me on behalf of his sister. Hmm, I wonder if the fact that he loved heavy metal was somehow related.
          When Loutallica put out Lulu it was like deja-vu. Reading the comments of Metallica fans I felt like I was experiencing the same thing all over again. I felt empathy for Loutallica. Though, I bet it was probably a lot easier for [them] to come to terms with all the abuse if they bothered paying any mind to them at all. When i played in heavy metal bands I was routinely steriotyped and mocked because I didn't act or dress like the typical metal dude. All of this leads me to believe that the heavy metal community does not dignify itself to being treated as anything less than a bigoted, overly-logical, overbearingly succinct culture of intellectually challenged morons.
           I'm sure there are exceptions, but they are probably few. So perhaps I will pass next time a documentary on VH1 Classic wants to promote how The Stooges, The MC5 and Little Richard influenced heavy metal. Why? The style and the culture (as it has existed for the past 25 years or so) is about as tolerant as a bar that features country music and authentic line dancing. Salsa clubs are no better and I love salsa. Unfortunately, the culture (like heavy metal culture) seems overly taken by male machismo and females whose claims to  intelligence may often be dubious as their claims to diversity. People don't subscribe to religions and cultures to find out about other religions and cultures.
           Markets themselves are double-edged swords. Artists who capitalize off of them are bound to be stabbed in the back by their devotees when they are done catering to demand.
           That said, it is interesting to ponder those who crtique Lulu on purely literary terms or purely stylistic terms. I don't see how either culture of criticism will be pleased with this album. It's like a great rock album and rock has always been sensualistic. The fact that Lou didn't bother enlisting his wife to do the female voices is enough to render the literary execution inferior, despite the merits (or, as some would have it, shortcomings) of the Lou's verbal confections. To me his lyrics are a tonal wash encompassing the extremism of metal culture from a psychological perspective. All forms of commitment are as extreme as they are inherently contradictory. Musically, the performances are what you expect from heavy metal musicians: largely pigheaded.....mixed with what you don't usually expect from heavy metal musicians: a little bit of space, a little bit of intuitive playing, extended ambiant bits and massively likable riffs and progressions which are definitely their own.
           Nothing new, nothing that old. Relevant (in a relative way). Almost unique. Most of all, it's defiant. If more people defied the markets which house our consumerist habits we might actually come close to achieving the epic rennaisance spirit of much of 60's music. This is a really good thing. This alone should make Lulu a awesome entry into the world of music. Awesome entry into the world of metal? Obviously (as determined by those who patronize and, ultimately, define it) "NO".
  • AlexSkolnick
    > For me, Lulu feels very disjointed and fragmented: The lyrics are
    awkward, disconnected and self-contradictory ( "I want so much to hurt
    you/ i want you as my wife"), the mix in the album emphasizes the
    distance between Lou and Metallica, even the limbless Lulu figure on the
    cover - all of this delivers a great sense of dissonance throughout the
    album.

          This part of your post brings this thought to mind: it's interesting to me that when Metallica was a hard edged, fast living band in the 80's, the music was razor sharp and precise (at least the riffs and vocals). Yet now that they are older, well off and in the case of James-whose guitar and vocals are the main source of sound-completely sober, they are interested in doing this music that is the complete opposite in terms of being sonically palatable.

          >the Lulu character, her psychology, her self-loathing and the impossible abusive relations she has

          Could this describe some of the things Metallica has gone through as a band over the years? Hmmmm
  • Enemyofstyle
    Sonically unpalatable? To who? The army? Oh my God, i'm sorry, but you people are so fucking limited. Metal enthusiasts reviewing a metal album which attempts to take a baby step forward, then get's virtually accosted like it's some completely crazy thing won't get anybody anywhere. The album is a collection of simply played, well thought out metal music with poetry and some neat avante-garde sounds now and then. It's stylistically completely in line with your choice cuts of meats to my unfashionable ears. I just can't accept any of these these opinions as being relevant to art/music as it exists in the cosmos, the only context to consider such things. The filter through which it's being channeled through is all to obvious and makes these reviews an alienating read for me. Rather hear some misplaced beatniks discuss it. I mean, you people really need to broaden your musical horizons. The Swans have been doing a far less accessible version of Lulu for the past 30 years. and who here even thought of bringing them up?
  • AlexSkolnick
    You and a few other folks on this blog seem to have a grasp on the 'Lulu' play which is probably extremely helpful for really 'getting' the album (if, indeed, that is possible). I don't pretend to have been so culturally enlightened to have already been familiar with the play, the opera or German Expressionism in general, for that matter.   But I (and I have a feeling, others as well) will pay more attention when they come across the entities, in person or on-line,  purely as a result of the 'Lulu' controversy. For example, when I was in the Milwaukee Art Museum a few days ago,  they had a
    roomful of German Expressionist prints. I made sure to go and take a look. I'm enjoying the increased awareness that the album is causing, even though, at this point, I feel no desire to crank the music.
  • There was a pretty amazing collection of Expressionist prints & paintings at MOMA this summer too. Did you catch that? Stepping away from The Scream to consider Munch's "Madonna's" was enthralling. The confrontational treatment of sex, self-loathing, and melancholy was totally brave, funny, cringe-inducing, beautiful-- especially given the cultural mores of the time. Was the MIlwaukee exhibit good too? 

    (Saw the Testament show there, and it was stellar.)

    If nothing more than these conversations comes from the Lulu album, it was a giant success. How nice to read/hear people delving into substance and learning new ways to look at any creative piece going forward. Even "simple" music has the power to elevate us. Love.
  • AlexSkolnick
    Milwaukee exhibit was a small room of B&W prints, many scenes of brothels, very ugly characters. But I could clearly see the connection. Missed the Expressionist collection at MOMA, unfortunately.

      >If nothing more than these conversations comes from the Lulu album,
    it was a giant success. How nice to read/hear people delving into
    substance and learning new ways to look at any creative piece going
    forward.

         Agreed.
  • Kimber
    This is a  GIANT Blog Best for you Alex and really hits the mark-et of extreme, creatively constructed communication so rich and full of interesting lines and forms of thought provoking shapes, overflowing and ever long, whose aesthetic is reflected in the beauty of the collective experience of reading it! yes,yes,yes, more, more more......
  • Ihatefascists
    the metal neanderthals keep saying, 'this just sucks man' because they have low iq's (which they try to compensate for by fetishizing mathematical complexity and precision), lack a fundamental understanding of cultures beyond their myopic realms......and are about as conservative as fundamentalist christians.........i don't hang with metal people, i don't discuss deep things with metal people, i don't discuss ideas with metal people and i don't turn metal people onto new and different things because if it's a little different (i.e. 'lulu') they get all bent out of shape.....that said, i think 'lulu' is a meaningful statement on gender and is highly relevant to times like these where craigslist/porn sites/live video girl$ with daddys defines the very lives we live after paying taxes.....but lets not talk about that....lets discuss metal, it's history, it's influence, our commitment to it and all the things which inspired it.
  • AlexSkolnick
    This part of your comment is interesting and thought provoking: 

    > i think 'lulu' is a meaningful statement on gender and is highly
    relevant to times like these where craigslist/porn sites/live video
    girl$ with daddys defines the very lives we live after paying taxes

        This part is not:

         > the metal neanderthals keep saying, 'this just sucks man' because they
    have low iq's (which they try to compensate for by fetishizing
    mathematical complexity and precision), lack a fundamental understanding
    of cultures beyond their myopic realms...

          Unfortunately the relevant things you have to say are completely invalidated by your blanket statements and judgments. Saying that about anyone who likes metal is unfair and shows the same type of ignorance you seem to be rallying against.

  • Openmindedonly
    If a pack of snakes lay proudly beneath a blanket, with a few remaining
    one's unable to fit in or merely isolated by choice, would you deny
    someone the right dignity of stating the truth about what he saw
    underneath that blanket? Mr. Skolnick, with all due respect, to invalidate that which is even clear to yourself, then have the mitigated gall to call Enemy of Style ignorant is horribly cruel. One cannot begin to address The Party until one recognizes that The Party exists in the first place. I wouldn't recommend you do it though. As for the metal culture having low IQ's, I can't say I've met many metal geniuses. I say this with particular regard to the fans. I would go so far as to say that there is a palpable lack of cultural sophistication, aesthetic sensibility and openness to change in the heavy metal culture. To discuss Lulu without dissecting heavy metal culture is to overlook the central gist of what Lulu, intentionally or unintentionally has done best. Lulu, for me, has done (if nothing else) an excellent job of exploiting the type of people who subscribe to heavy metal culture. Does it detract from the content found in heavy metal music? Yes, when you consider that which is most critically acclaimed amongst connoisseurs of the genre 'succeeds'. Though, in all fairness, ALL genres (like all religions and institutions themselves) cater to lesser minds. There is a word for it, 'mass appeal'. Even children qualify where such demographics are concerned. Thank God. I want to thank Enemy of Style for stating the obvious and would like to see more people speak out and don't be afraid of being politically incorrect when the truth comes in the form of millions of ball-peen hammers virtually shattering Lulu to pieces, throwing them on a fire, then taking a communal on the remains. It does reality itself a horrible injustice. Voice your unpopular opinions free peoples. Totalitarianisms are for fools. Music is for Us. Strength in numbers. Make your unpopular voices be heard! There is so much to do for free in the posthuman age in our humble abodes. The elitists, who have been known to identify Us as such (in defense of themselves) perpetuate mediocrity out of fear and denial. Let them have their thumbs up, their plentiful oral service and their fortunate fan bases. We, who are societies dirt, have better things to do.
  • Ihatefascists
    oh i heard that line before...."don't stereotype They" (that would be judgmental!)..........my dear friend, is it not a double standard to stereotype oneself for financial and libidinal gain and have the convenience of dismissing accusations of pandering via the PC card you've just dealt?.......come on man, both the statements you paraphrased are terribly relevant and you damn know it.......i (like you) play METAL.......don't act like you don't know what it's all about......let's take this line by line......a) "metalheads have low iqu's"  -- i won't be intellectual about this -- you know exactly what i'm talking about -- forget the word 'intelligence' -- they just LACK -- what do they lack? well, GENERALLY speaking: intuition, soul, curiousity, diversity and tolerance -- many people associate such things with Intelligence.....b) "......which they compensate for by fetishizing mathematical complexity and precision" -- yes, metal is  precisionistic, has a production protocol which must be fulfilled each and every time in order to be accepted by metal enthusiasts and most metal (in modern terminology) is based on extremely complex permutations of basic mathematics -- this enables cultists with marginalized brain power to impress eachother -- all of this, of course, is exclusively attributable to the so-called linear lobes (or right brains) -- god damn improvisation/ 'expressiveness'/playfullness/authenticity etc -- hence 'this definitely sucks damn!' or 'lou reed is shit' or 'lou reed destroys evrything as soon as he opens his fucking mouth'  or ' i hope lou reed dies for this!' or  'the guitars weren't mixed right and everything sounds completely wrong'.........ah, the spirit of art, the beauty of creation, the pureness of discover.......i should never steriotype such a diverse group of music lovers......to summarize: loutallica have broken several cardinal sins held most sacred amongst metal followers: they are improvising, being expressive, casting technicality to the wind sometimes and really playing.....and they are authentically being themselves......now they should suffer the spears and arrows that the vitriol-spewing style-fetishists wiled generously towards them.going so far as to make threats upon a 70 yr old man's life.
  • @Ihatefascists : For the life of me, I cannot imagine what sort of validation or productive line of conversation you are seeking with these last two comments. Maybe it is not intentional, but on the page your words look elitist, and sort of mean-spirited.

    If I may, I would like to address your comments regarding the people you purport to associate with, play in a band with, and play to voluntarily. As a person whose IQ tests out around 145-148 (avg. Americans are around 100-110) and who loves metal, I can assure you that metal lovers come with all different levels of intelligence. Furthermore, IQ is not the best or only significant measure of intelligence. Progressive thought:  Ideas, innovation, reinterpretation, and new questions- is the result of a diverse collection of perceptive and creative skills. To that end, you may wish to read the work of Howard Gardner on multiple theories of intelligence, and consider that those who think in absolutes tend not to be very smart, or very healthy psychologically. The need for rigidity is usually symptomatic of a person who lacks an internal sense of grounding, and needs certainty and control because they do not trust their own intelligence/intuition enough to acknowledge subtlety/shades of grey. So- as you reach to stereotype MILLIONS of people, consider what you are conveying about yourself.


    Moreover, as someone whose circles of friends include 80's thrash metal fans, math/prog metal musicians, seminal punk rockers, and members of VERY successful indie rockers and electronic/pop musicians, and jazz players,  I can assure you that EVERY genre of music- at every level-  attracts intensely ignorant and intensely BRILLIANT people in similarly mixed numbers. I can also assure you that at metal shows I have attended across the country, the level of friendliness, kindness, and all-around inclusivity exceeds that which I have seen at shows of most other genres. For all the ranting about intelligence and what you seem to perceive as a narrow creative playing field, you are very eager to box everyone else in and presuppose that your experience is somehow more valid than theirs. Art, you may recall, is all about subjective experience. Someone's dislike of a piece or their fondness for one style or another does not relegate them to the "unwashed masses." In fact- sometimes dislike on the part of a viewer/listener is the INTENDED outcome. So- in rejecting LULU, they may be getting it right. Once again, letting go of presupposition is the road to a richer life and artistic experience. Sorry to be long winded, and for butting in... Best-
  • Howdoesitfeeltofeel
    "Stereotyping' is something people voluntarily do to themselves. "Steriotypes" are benefical social instituions that requires an individuals participation. Why call Enemyofstyle 'elitest' and 'mean-spirited' because he has cited the existence of sheep who truly exhibit such traits. I'm surprised that someone who is supposed to be intelligent would side with the herd like that. Female privilege is, perhaps, not without a price......and, perhaps, you'd feel equally compelled to tell me that a woman's function in social circles is not necessarely akin to glue. Although you needn't side with Enemyofstyle, you shouldn't make the grave mistake of 'blaming the messeneger'. that is a direct insult to your own 'intelligence'.


  • AlexSkolnick
    @Ihatefascists :  it seems baffling that you'd be so critical of anyone who listens to metal yet profess to (like me) play the music. Therefore you must have considered yourself 'metal' at some point. The term 'self-hating' comes to mind.

        Is there truth to what you're saying? Sure-  the metal stereotype exists for a reason, like most others. But as withother stereotypes, it is highly exaggerated and does not hold true as a blanket statement. As a case in point, see my occasional posts on the old blog, 'Everybody's Metal' (for example: http://skolnotes.blogspot.com/...  I'll grant that you have an interesting perspective and no one can accuse you of 'towing the party line.'  But I'm not sure why your points have to made in such a generalized, knee-jerk manner.

          Ann Ad-I:  Very well said.
  • Enemyofstyle
    Highly exaggerated? The mere use of paragraphs is an understatement when you search the internet, especially Youtube, and see what you fraternity are spewing forth with a vitriol comparable to radical Islamism. Your 'liberal' defense of self-steriotypers just doesn't work any more. Yes Alex and hot Asian intellectual -- your metal army are predominently infantile, intolerant, sheep-like trolls. These are the people who feed your livelihood. These are the people you represent. How does that make you feel?
       Anne, you would like to convince me of all of the sophisticated worldly metal heads you meet at all of the shows you attend. Well, I'm twice your age and have been to twice as many shows. All I've encountered are one-dimensional dumbfucks who revile in their fascism and look upon people like me with tolerance enough not to slice my throat. They simply act as if I do not exist. I've seen it in New York, I've seen it in Japan and I've seen it in L.A. Logic is global. The pathologies which define and feed the markets are religious.
       Some lemons are sweet, but shall we refrain from calling them bitter to account for the few exceptions? I'm sorry for being so aggressive, but feel like I was provoked and I don't take shit from people. You should be ashamed of yourselves for lying.....lying to the metal population who need to be shown better and lying to outcasts like myself who are intimately related to the cosmos (by choice). You should be ashamed for lying to yourselves. Though, perhaps, I'm giving you too much credit. Perhaps you simply don't know any better.
       Though you can both write far more succinctly than myself, your hearts may not be nearly as lucid.....your commitments may not be nearly as noble (with all due respect to practicality). I'm going to leave you alone because it's obvious we don't like each other. Anger is not something I aspire to. I mustn't ever read any more critical analysis' of Lulu because it will rarely restore my faith in the heavy metal community. I would rather channel my life force into things which please God.
       I was naive and foolish to expect your would condone the thoughts of an outspoken non-leader. Can you convince a professor of philosophy that he is inhibiting one's basic ability to observe things? No. Thus, I will always contend that music communities are, in fact, enemies of mine. I despise retro 60's fascists, New Age fascists, Acid Folk fascists, Blues fascists, Opera fascists, Avante Garde Fascists, Punk rock fascists, Psychedelic fascists etc. These are just markets and they'll probably spawn things which are marginally to hardly exciting.
      And, yes, to discuss Lulu without discussing Patronage is decaffeinated discourse. Totally useless.
  • @Alex You are apt to the max.
  • Enemyofstyle
    Oops, i hit you 'like' button' again. Now your more likeable. Your welcome. Anyway, yea.....kiss his ass like they all do. A matter of fact, what reason does this page have yo exist other than to draw attention to the celebrity who provided it for us. His fans get to  simultaneously touch greatness while healing the wounds caused by Lulu, which has defaced their heroes which once preached proudly upon the pulpit.
       You are obviously intelligent but have taken the low road by responding to my insights (which you know damn well are quite valid and sound) and calling me names not dissimilar to the one's psychiatrists might use. Perhaps my trolling could be a source for romantic bonding or just professional exaltation for both of you. It's financially, intellectually and physically feasible.
       So, don't feed the troll. Don't buy Lulu. Act as if I'm not here. Let's talk about cliff and the REAL Metallica album which will be coming out later this year. And, with regards to sheep, nobody
    whose identity and livelihood depends on mass patronage is going to be
    converted. I’m too cool a person to allow myself to
    become just another blabbering pseudonym and foolish for trying.
  • Uhhhh. Wow.
  • Ihatefascists
    Metal, for me, is a bottle of cumin. Metal New Age, Metal Jug Band, Metal Raga, Metal smooth Jazz, Metal Moody Blues Etc. Maybe no or not metal at all. You do what you can do with that [sound]. I love Hawkwind.   But this isn't about me, it is about a wonderful CD that Loutallica made called Lulu. I'm holding a mirror up to those who jerk our knees and generalize people.
       Life is short and you can embrace things or push them aside. I choose to embrace all the visual metaphors that lay before me, as long as I'm allowed to  build some negative space with my bottle of white out and work into each image one with multi-colored crayons. If you choose to view this as an act of self-loathing then so be it. Everyone has an end. Perhaps yours is 'success', and we all know what that's about.
  • Ihatefascists
    I read your ad more closely and realized that we agree on a few things. you [do] in fact recognize that IQ has little to do with intelligence. But, not to worry, because I accidentally hit the 'liked' button underneath your statement. This will further validate your social standing within the metal community. when lots of people agree with you it mean you are doing something right. I feel compelled to ad one small tidbit to my response.....one which I feel is significant. I have noticed that when I call liberal activists out on a particular market or culture they inevitable tell me I'm 'stereotyping' people. Perhaps, you didn't read [my] statement too clearly yourself, or perhaps you simply can't comprehend it. So I'll restate. It is the nature of cultures to establish a norms for behavior and sustain itself through the methodical slaying of progressive thought, ideas, innovation, reinterpretation, and new questions. So your accusation that, by holding a mirror up to such things, I am as myopic as those I condemn is completely invalid. What have you to gain? Who are you serving? How afraid are you of driving a stake through the heart of mindless, openly limited, imbeciles who consistent;y show one color and one color only. This page, for instance, is predominantly overran by members of but one sociomusical culture.....and do you see many of them exhibiting any of the precepts you yourself laid out as a more relevant means of determining one's true intelligence?
       In my perfect world people should be people, free to think and do what they want. they should not stereotype themselves. In such a perfect world it would be appropriate, then, not to stereotype others. But the real world is simply not the way we would like it to be. 'Man is a social creature' carries with it a price. One can no longer embrace one's authenticity (in it's most peculiar context) and one must consider compromising one's logic, least they suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune. I'm sure you know all of this, however. I don't expect you to agree with me. This could be detrimental to you. I am foul. I am mean-spirited. I am a fascist. I put people in boxes. I will never be a success. I've got it all wrong. How can you tell? You look at the thumbs. When they are pointing upwards you know your doing something right. You look at the grades: A's are better than B's and B's are better than C's. You can go places when you earn your degrees. You look at the friends. When a person has many you know they have the right stuff, especially when the friends say flattering things about them. It means a lot.. And, when they give more thumbs up it means more. More. What's good for most is what's right. By drawing people inside a box you could seal your fate, even if that box is real. Even if you despise boxes.
  • Ihatefascists
    Interesting how those eager to be well liked have often called me 'elitest'. It's the price one pays for being special in few people's minds and ears. I'm going to make my point very simple. You can call me 'elitist' when I'm addressing elitists. You can call me 'judgmental' when I'm judging the jury. You can call me mean-spirited when I'm judging monsters. My point: the sort of metal people who feel qualified, somehow, to voice  their opinions on Lulu appear to be seriously lacking in basic intelligence. Forget IQ. IQ means fuck. I know your the type that likes to please the [true] elitists -- academics who make a business out of knowledge.....write turn papers that are historically sound and whatnot, but I could give a fuck. I'm anti education. I'm anti-institution. I'm anti-conformity. And, no, I don't believe your IQ digit makes you particularly perceptive. I'll be honest. I could care less about the historical value of Lulu. Why does it appeal to me? I am a misogynist. I despise women for deeply ingrained sociological reasons. I see so much going on today that is horrendous. Man has become a slave (or 'table' as the songs go), being bullied when he decides to watch other people having sex on the computer, meet girls on dating sites, goes to clubs under completely deceptive and coercive pretenses -- these things demoralize his existence. These things exploit and demean his very humanity. Women, if they would but will themselves to being independent, can easily support themselves by kicking men in the balls or merely dancing for them. Exercise is really good for your body. My point: men are being transformed into homosexuals at an alarming rate. This is a fact. You can call me names for that too. Maybe you prefer, 'homophobic' or 'delusional' or 'blanket statement'. Maybe, even 'paranoid'. So be it. Still, I will maintain my case that there are serious changes going on in the underbelly of the human soul.....and the sexual aspect is an obvious component of the changes which are occurring. Yet, who is talking about it? No one....hardly. Least of all, the world of Art or popular music. Knowing Lou's history, that he once married a transvestite and is a keen social observer, I wouldn't be surprised if Lulu is but a subversive agitprop (a giant mirror, if you will) to hold up to humans in sorry times. I don't think it is merely coincidental what Lou is doing: the constant hugging, words of affection towards the handsomest member of the band, constant references to the sexual/music interplay in almost sensual terms. Lou and the guys are tweaking the metal culture. Yes, it is a largely homophobic culture. More ironic that metal men used to dress up like macho transvestites. I have played in experimental metal bands in the 80's and 90's and know the culture well. I personally [can't] attest to meeting any geniuses in the field (or the net) and can accept the fact that you [have]. Or, perhaps you believe one's academic pliability equates intelligence. Again, I'm partly to blame for the IQ card by offering up the significance of it. Intelligence (to me) means that one would be perceptive -- and perceptive enough not to be overly logical/anal/limited despising all that can be fun and playful in art. That the wild boars freely spew forth their cold vitriol towards the album via negative online trolling and threats to Reeds well-being indicates to me that they may be rather simplistic, which, again, says more about a persons intelligence than their ability to be cognitive academically. That the wild boars, who subscribe to a culture riddled with trappings all related to style, could probably care less about the social/lyrical ramifications of this thing called Lulu --  which is what really matters most when considering the subversive level it is working on. this, to me, indicates that there may, in fact, be a shortage of brain power within the metal culture. It is not endemic of [any] music culture to be, at the very least, interesting. Shit rises. The masses, by law, are asses. Common denominators become aesthetic straightjackets. Did I say aesthetic? What? Using those big words like that old faggot Lou Reed? Pretentious Weasil! Your not worthy of metal. Get away from Us. Go back from where you came. Cliff would never let this happen! As for you, Ad-Infinitum: I'm heartily sorry if it offends you that I've found followers of popular musical cultures (in general) to be unsavory friends, backstabbing lovers and not worth my time sparring with over the internet. I'm into possibilities, ideas and constructive anarchy. Heavy metal? It's a nice tone to use sometimes.
  • Greenski
    typical metalhead you......metalheads get uneasy when i talk about what the album addresses..........not surprised that you've addressed none of it.........gender...........sex...............male anger seething more than ever underneath our shallow facades nowadays..........what do u care about that............all metal people care about is style and whats good or bad -- "art"..we all know most metal is functional and imitative and based on protocol.......so you put the "art" in a box......metal culture is based on values which are written in stone..........your review is not surprising.........good art comments on life..........have u noticed?.......if you did you wouldn't say it
  • AlexSkolnick
    Lulu! Is that you??
  • Skattabrain
    Any credit this album gets is undeserving, and I'm a Velvet Underground fan. I think Lars has been to too many art shows... you know, the ones where "artists" throw paint, vomit and other bodily fluids against a canvas and call it art. 

    The rest of us must just not "get it".

    Metallica lost their way somewhere between "One" and "Enter Sandman"

    Contrast this with Opeth's Heritage... which many core fans are not so happy with because it's a somewhat radical departure and more artsy. But love it or hate, (I love it) they aren't throwing paint at the wall like bored children who are full of themselves.
  • AlexSkolnick
    That is one opinion- a valid one that appears shared by others. But even supposing all that is totally true, it doesn't make the project's existence any less interesting.

        I'm not familiar with Opeth's 'Heritage,' but others on-line are mentioning that as well, so I'll be keeping an ear out for it...
  • Skattabrain
    I think you'ld dig Heritage... be sure to check it out... more of a late 60's-70's feel.
  • Garyjfoster
    it is what it is....metallica is having fun with lou reed and just doing something different....its more of a lou reed thing if anything....people take metallica too seriously....its just music...if you like it cool if not then don't...people in general just don't get it....its not a metallica album so don't freak out.. ...Everybody takes things way out of proportion....and as far as metallica doing another master like album....thats not gonna happen....when your young ,drunk ,broke,and not married with kids and were just playing to be heavy and fast.....but once you make tons of money and have conquered everywhere...whats left...whats to be angry about....they are definately not angry about their bank accounts...i wouldn't be either...metallica fan for life..i listen to it as a musician of 25 years and a music lover all my life... i dont want another past album...let aging bands be....no one stays the same forever
  • AlexSkolnick
    No matter what anyone says, it is eally, really different. It is not only unique among metal bands, but among rock supergroups as well. U2 did get into some unusual territory with Zooropa, Pop and its controversial ZooTV and PopMart tours, but later came blasting back down to what fans know and love with 'All The You Can't Leave Behind.' It would be interesting if they mounted a full 'Lulu' tour, but somehow, I don't see that happening.
  • Such a great perspective on the record. Thanks for such a lucid commentary. To wit, it seems that it would be worthwhile to consider the aesthetics in German Expressionist art and film. A displacement of expected visual rhythms within the film sets is typical, as is visual dissonance (ugliness) in the associated paintings. The influence of German Expressionism on the horror genre is well known, especially thanks to its direct lineage to Hitchcock and movies like, "Psycho." - So- for Metallica to try and pick up on some of that and explore it makes good sense, and I'm glad they took up the challenge. It's also interesting to re-imagine the soundtrack to German Expressionist films/plays since instrumentation of that day was limited and silent film was the immediate contemporary. Thus, when shown in theaters, films of the genre were probably accompanied by the in-house organ player--- or in the case of plays, an orchestra. Modern instrumentation that also gives nod to the genre's influence on modern film - and which acts as a sound bed for such a human story- is an interesting vehicle for creating a sense of tension. Forcing the story forward in time via the metal soundtrack could also be a way of confronting the failure in society to resolve the issues which preclude prostitution (the story in the orig. Lulu plays) even after nearly a century of progress in civil rights and attitudes regarding sex and women. 

    It is worth checking out Sir Andrew Davis's commentary on Lulu the opera, vs Lulu  as interpreted by Metallica/Reed. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... ) Even in that version of the play, the music is imagined in a way which many listeners should and do find uncomfortable. While a large majority of opera goers arrive expecting the lilting arias of, say, Puccini- Lulu's music (Alban Berg) is wrought with persistent dissonance- and has often been called "ugly." To that end, perhaps the Metallica/Reed collaboration has arrived at its intended result? Perhaps a greater success than we realize? Hard to say in those terms. 

    For music fans not familiar with experimental music, it may be worth considering the role expectations and surprise play in the appeal of music. Music is merely a collection of rhythmic and tonal intervals. The brain entrains with a certain amount of repetition, and then begins the pleasurable hunt for deviation/change/surprise within the pattern. That's why in the midst of a sing-song-y pop song, a good bridge is so much more engaging. The same principle can be applied to fancy tempo changes, odd chord progressions, and so forth. Often, experimental music denies the listener the comfort of repetition, and easily discernible patterns. Instead of being able to "fall into" a song, listeners must engage in a constantly unwinding piece the way a math fiend engages with pi. On the micro level, I find the musical component of the record to be much too easy to embody this principle. However, on the macro level- we take two entities, Reed and Metallica, both of whom for me, have become so predictable and repetitious as to have become unlistenable... and then you throw them into a studio together, and the result is jarring enough to demand attention (though, perhaps not fondness). Perfect. A pattern interrupt in the greater flow. 

    When viewed from this angle, I would call this a great conceptual success. LIke the work of greats like Malcolm Goldstein, I never need to hear it more than once. But I respect Metallica for it more than I have in over 20 years.
  • Nice Work
    Awesome Ann.  There has Not been enough analyzing of the albums content and the commentary it is making and way too much analysis of the personalities behind it.  Along similar lines as yourself, when I listen to this album I think about the roles we play in society, how society sees us in these roles and our capacity to be ourselves within these established views.  I would recommend people check out Sylvia Plath and her poem "The Applicant"  for an interpretation of what I'm trying to say. Cheers too Alex for the review and the interesting historical perspective - l would encourage you to listen to it more than once, it's one long story that encapsulates many sad themes that the unfortunate Lulu is tasked to wearing this time.
  • AlexSkolnick
    Thanks for posting one of the most insightful and relevant comments in the 3+ year history of this blog.

             What I've tried to do is help expand the horizons of those who might not understand the full context and implications of a creation such as this.  I know my own context is limited to my personal experiences, which are shaped much more a life in music than a knowledge of art. I suppose it could be argued qualified to write this because I know what its like to be baffled by an artist when you're expecting something much more in line with their previous output (I was a bit young for Lennon and Reed, but certainly remember the P. Metheny album coming out in the 90's and thinking 'Why would he do that?'). I've also been in the position, several times in fact, of having expectations and going against them (as a guitarist who played 'thrash,' and wasn't expected to develop into a serious musician or become a literate person with cultural awareness and high tastes and standards). I've also been in the unique position of rubbing elbows with some of the subjects of this post, all of which I suppose adds to whatever credibility this post hopefully has.  But what you've done here is shine further light upon it, with a perspective that only someone who is fluent in art and music, and the particular subgenres of Expressionist art and metal music could accomplish.

          >A displacement of expected visual rhythms within the film sets is
    typical, as is visual dissonance (ugliness) in the associated paintings.
    The influence of German Expressionism on the horror genre is well
    known, especially thanks to its direct lineage to Hitchcock and movies
    like, "Psycho."
        
           This is a great point, one which I wish I'd been aware of when writing the original post. Of course, the link between horror and modern metal is well known. In fact, legend has it that the existence of Black Sabbath (the forefathers of metal), has much to do with the band, tired of playing to nearly empty rooms, noticing a line around the block for the latest horror movie.

          >Forcing the story forward in time via the metal soundtrack could also be
    a way of confronting the failure in society to resolve the issues which
    preclude prostitution (the story in the orig. Lulu plays) even after
    nearly a century of progress in civil rights and attitudes regarding sex
    and women.

          Clearly there are a lot of unresolved attitudes that remain in regards to attitudes towards sex and women. In fact, it can be argued that while primitive male attitudes still exist, there has also arisen a 'reverse sexism,' that creating a demographic of subservient men. Is this part of what's being expressed in this modern take on Expressionism?  Possibly. Either way, that's a subject for a whole other blog post. 

        >It is worth checking out Sir Andrew Davis's commentary on Lulu the opera, vs Lulu  as interpreted by Metallica/Reed. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...


          The clip is very enjoyable and enlightening. I suppose one of the biggest challenges here for fans to do deal with is that you have to look much, much further in order to even attempt to understand this album (if that's possible). This in itself goes against the very reasons so many are drawn to metal in the first place: it's simplicity. 

        After all, the foundation of metal is the riff, something even the far from bright cartoon characters Beavis & Butthead can latch onto (who of course are created by a brilliant man, Mike Judge. Would love to see a B&B take on Lulu). Many metal fans have trouble listening to blues, jazz and classical, let alone accepting that these forms have helped shape the music they love. To challenge them with work that involves poetry, plays and opera is probably asking a lot. But its fun to explore these things, even if its not your cup of tea. I also remember what it's like to just want to bang my head to some good metal, and people in that frame of mind should stay the hell away from all discussions on Lulu and just listen to metal albums they know they like.
          
          Thanks again for the comment, and hoping you drop by from time to time, Ms. Ad-Infitium. What you've written here qualifies as 'Ad-dendum.'
  • Many thanks. Such a pleasure to get your perspective. Very much looking forward to reading more of your very well thought out writing. Happy Thanksgiving! - Ann
  • I think this discussion could easily branch into dozens of directions, from the artistic intent behind the original Lulu, the Lou Reed take on it sans Metallica, the Lou Reed take with Metallica, and the cultural baggage that changes our perspective on the actual audio that has been recorded.  Had I not stumbled on this blog post, I'd have probably just brushed it aside as a 200-level Metallica art project.  But when you actually consider it, it does raise a lot of questions, particularly to a guy like me who would probably give Colonel Klink saying "HOOOGAANNN!!!" as an example of German Theatrical Expressionism. 

    In both the original Lulu and in the Loutallica take, the story has Lulu's attractiveness and sexuality take her to to the very highest strata of society.  Everybody wants what she has.  Men crumble before her.  She has no empathy for those who are dying to be with her, but rather pits them against each other and uses them to achieve favorable ends for herself.  At the end of the story, she has fallen from the highest to the lowest end of society.  What was her power has become her crutch, and inevitably leads her into her death.  Her power becomes her undoing.  Of course, the irony gets to be that the one person who she willingly goes to and gets nothing in return is the one who simply kills her.  Or maybe her killing is the actual payment.  What does this mean?  And who is Lulu, really?  Each of her succession of lovers calls her something different, and finds in her something that they want.  Her lovers really know nothing about her but simply find what they are looking for, and she is apparently indifferent to the feelings and fates of those she leaves in her wake.  The content of the Lulu story itself raises a ton of questions and provokes enough thoughts without even bringing Lou Reed and Metallica into the picture. 

    What does having Metallica provide music for the Lou Reed interpretation of this story have to do with the main themes of Lulu itself?  Maybe it tells us more about Lou Reed's impression of Lulu than we think.  Perhaps, he interprets the story in the light of the original title for the first installment; "Erdegeist" (earth-spirit).  Maybe Lulu is simply a personification of the force of nature that is sex and all that is associated with it.  Then perhaps Metallica's role was to provide an earthy, elemental, and larger-than-life musical backdrop for the whole thing.  That makes more sense to me than an attempt to substitute improvised heavy metal for the 12-tone vibe of the earlier opera in an attempt to convey a similar thing. 

    BTW--I would like to thank the people who wrote the Wikipedia entry about Lulu for any knowledge that I now have about it whatsoever.
  • AlexSkolnick
    Good observations & theories, even if Wikipedia is the source (kudos for being upfront about that). It's also interesting to think about the role that the internet plays in all of this- the fact that everyone can sample the music on-line, everyone can 'Google' about 'Lulu' source material for background info and that blogs and other forums like this now exist for everyone to discuss their thoughts. With the other albums mentioned in the post, all discussion was limited to print and word of mouth (literally).
  • Craigrattlehead
    Im a hardcore metallica fan, and i think the album is great.  There is no genre of music on the album i dislike, rap, no hip hop. no bubblegum pop punk, techno dance,  so for me i have no problem with the music,  its loutallica, a new thing, to say its a bad album is really missing the point, a band creating music, having fun, not to please the masses. but to please themselves,  whats the problem?
  • AlexSkolnick
    Great to hear from someone who truly 'likes' the album. And that's a good point, it certainly does not venture into 'dance- pop' territory or any other genre that's not 'rock,' even if it's a unique style of rock many can't relate too.
  • Cosmicmother
    It's not unique. Bands like Hawkwind have been appropriating heavy metal music for decades. Space Metal. What [is] unique about this album is the marriage of spoken poetry to sweatpant metal with a kind of twist to it, especially with the noisy stuff the guitars are doing........which is fairly new for Metallica.
            The CD is a masterpiece and it's ashame that 99% of metal aficionados (atleast the one's I know) refuse to actually listen to it. They flat-out hate it. It speaks poorly of the mentality of many metal fans. At the very least, it points to the 'technical perfectionism'  and unadventurous nature of metal fans. Sad, politically incorrect, but true.
            I remember encountering the same mentality way back in the 80's while over a friends house. There was an English thrash-metal band sleeping over who happened to live not far from Hawkwind's communal abodes. When I mentioned that I really enjoyed their music one of the members (who was wearing sweatpants) flatly stated, "bullock, total bullocks that crikey shiite is made for people on drugs -- can't stand it!!!!!"
           One would like to think metal aficionados were more open to the expressive qualities of music, or just quirky playful interesting intuitive things as well as the usual mechanical machine drills (and I don't necessarily mean that in a bad way).
           You get the feeling that metal becomes a sonic armour for many.........where one's vulnerabilities, subtleties or other appropriations of humanity are to be aggressively ostracized or scorned.
           It all leads me to wonder if many metal aficionados could possibly have something to hide.
           Perhaps, the male members of said institution have repressed homosexual tendencies. Perhaps the female members are merely appeasing them (to a degree). Maybe all people who love metal are acutely sensitive.

          We must not stereotype people.

          Everybody needs to make a buck. We all require human love, artistic acceptance and Facebook friends.

          It is not easy living in the real world (that's for sure}.

          "A fuck is a fuck" (GG Allin)
        
           Maybe we shouldn't expect too much from They.

           The few, the non-proud and non-elite (who embrace Lulu) are probably the types of people I personally would want to smoke a joint with and explore the realms of textures/tones/possibilities.

          "Music is for people" (Red Krayola).

          Why [should] musical commodities be reserved only for sheep who feel they are somehow qualified to gage the merit of human expression?
  • Logan Brown8
    I'm fifteen years old, and In grade ten, I just wanted to say that if you were a student in my English class everyone would stand and clap (as that is the custom when some one has issued a great point) that was a very detailed and well thought out response, and I know it probably means nothing to you if a 15 year old admires your comment but, well it made me click the link and scroll down until I found your comment just so I could give you a compliment. Well said Cosmicmother I hope the Metal Heads of the next generation have the exact mindset of you.
  • AlexSkolnick
    I second Logan's comment. Very wise, esp for a tenth grader.

         Cosmicmother-    While I'm not sure if the work is a 'masterpiece' (time will tell)  your points are on target. It is interesting that the hard rock/heavy metal demographic was seen for many years as being misogynistic and homophobic (probably not helped by the lyrics of one Axl Rose). Then it turned out that there are rock and metal icons who are gay (Freddie Mercury of Queen- sort of an 'honorary' metal band) and of course Rob Halford of Judas Priest (whom I wrote about in a past blog post http://skolnotes.blogspot.com/...

         As a totally heterosexual yet sensitive, non-homophobic male, I would say most metal guys I know (and there are so many), are probably not closeted homosexuals. However, some of them do have a weird aversion to sensitivity and anything not 'masculine' enough. Maybe they do have something to hide, although I suspect it is more likely deep rooted insecurity.
  • Dangerousisgood
    I've noticed this too. Many metal dudes are uptight about "feeling", but theyr'e super sensitive and nice when theyr'e not playing music. Any metal head that I bring up this album to get's [mad] at me. As if something they are clinging to in an extraordinary sense has been violated. I think a lot of it to hide a deep rooted vulnerability (maybe homosexuality. Consider that metal dudes used to dress up as tranvestites and you can get a sense of what might be going on. I always thought metal gives many men a chance to practice being linear-thinking, aggressive men who have mastered both a trade and their linear lobes. Lou Reeds voice, which is purely expressive and technically unconcerned, will not be a hit with metal heads for purely obvious reasons. Intellectual bookish themes will also not be a hit with metalheads because it is probably not part of their cultural agenda. You, Mr. Skolnick, are a rare exception. A gentleman and a scholar. Thank you for your wonderful review. but, make no mistake, the CD is  a gift from the Gods. Spacey Avante Metal meets BDSM. Metallica meets Lou Reed.
  • Cosmicmother
    If you really wanted to appear to be 15 years old perhaps you would not be so punctually perfect and your syntax would be slightly inconsistent. Perhaps I'm juvenile in your mind and worthy of this sort of 'patronage' (in it's derogatory context). So be it. I'm done participating in a forum which seems decidedly against criticizing metal culture. Metal culture is equally or more deserving of critical analysis than Lulu when discussing Lulu. Though perhaps this isn't the right place for it (in the majority of minds).
  • Gazagoo
    Sorry, no. This record is pure crap.  Top to bottom.  You could poop on a table and put a gallery light on it and call it art - doesn't mean it actually is and nor do I want anything to do with it.  Pass.
  • Logan Brown8
    I really like how you used the word poop :P I don't agree with you but being an adolescent, I still have some kinks in the maturity machine that need to be checked out. Therefore when you said "poop on a table and put a gallery light on it and call it art" I chuckled quite furiously :P
  • AlexSkolnick
    By reacting to it and especially by posting about it on-line, you are having something to do with it, whether you like it or not.
  • Who cares?
    By giving my personal opinion about a news report concerning the financial crisis and tweeting about it, doesn't change the fact that whether I talk about it or not, the crisis will not change because of my behaviour. "You are having something to do with it" is a phrase you can apply to anything 'cause nowadays, and especially with Web 2.0, everything is up for discussion. There is no mythical depth to this album since they market the shit out of Lulu. If they would have released this with the intention of creating 'art', they would have given it away for free to give people something to think about. The problem is that 'art' is becoming so subjective that even 5 drips of paint on a canvas can be considered 'a brilliant idea'. The thought behind it has become so much more important than the actual creation of something both technical and beautiful. There are no boundaries anymore to what art really is so every one can consider themselves an artist. I'm not kidding when I say that if people accept Lulu as a work of art, I'm frightened. And yes, I've listened to it multiple times.
  • AlexSkolnick
    >There are no boundaries anymore to what art really is so every one can consider themselves an artist.
       
           That applies to music as well (Rebecca Black has the gall to consider herself a musician). But part of my point was that in this case, the parties responsible have serious credibility in the music AND art world.

     >The thought behind it has become so much more important than the actual creation of something both technical and beautiful

              It's clearly not the most 'technical' work every released, but there are some here who find it beautiful (disclaimer: the views expressed in these threads do not necessarily reflect the views of the author of this blog post).       Are they wrong? Are you?      The exploration of these ideas is interesting, even if you don't happen to like the music or concept of the album. You're welcome to disagree, which is one of the beauties of living in a (sort of) free society.
  • Jhem
    I remember reading an interview on Guitar World magazine wherein Kirk Hammett somewhat pointed out that he would only listen to any criticism regarding Metallica's music if that person was "qualified." Clearly, he meant that the person must have experienced being a successful touring and recording artist, lived and breathed music, and knew enough about the inner workings of the music industry to present a valid critique about them. Obviously, there's no better person than you, Alex, who could provide an unbiased insight regarding this controversial record. Thank you for speaking out your mind and ,hopefully, cleared out some cobwebs out there. Cheers.
  • AlexSkolnick
    It was hard for me to watch all the reviews and reactions to the record, many by critics and other so called 'experts' who were not thinking about any of these other angles mentioned in this post. 

         I do realize the concept of 'liking' a creative work that though you don't want to look at it for too long (or in this case, listen to), is a bit
    difficult for many to grasp.  So while the post was written simply for my own creative expression, if it helps others understand it in anyway, then I'm happy to help.
  • Frizbeedogrip
    Excellent review.  The economy the way it is, can't afford to buy an album that I don't enjoy.  You are right about Metallica.  They are so successful worldwide that they could collaborate with the Pope and still be on the charts for a couple of weeks or more.  Very informative and entertaining.  Listened to you for many many years and you are one of the best.  Thanks.
  • AlexSkolnick
    Thank you. Another point to consider is that ownership of albums is at an all time low. So as long as people are going to be able to check out the tracks on-line anyway, why not make a product that most people aren't going to want to buy?

        Remember, Metallica has a history of sneaking in these quirky  little side products in between albums, where sales figures aren't as much of a factor:  'Garage Days EP' Garage Days Revisited' Garage Days Re-Revistited' 'S&M' etc... At this point, they've done punk covers, recorded with a symphony, recorded classic rock (Queen, Bob Seger, Skynyrd). So what else could they do that would just completely get people to stop and take notice (regardless of liking the music)?  I'd say this qualifies.
  • Y'know, you say that you're not in the 1% of musicians who can do whatever they want; but I think the fact that you've played in Savatage, the Alex Skolnick Trio and the Trans-Siberian Orchestra, musical outfits radically different from Testament, would attest that you, too, have achieved a level of musical flexibility and maneuverability that lots of other metal musicians either avoid, or only dream of. 

    I love when established bands do something different and challenging that alienates the purists, the undergrounds, the die-hards. I loved it when Savatage became a rock opera band, "Load" is in my top 3 Metallica albums, etc. etc. If "Lulu" antagonizes Metallica's fan base this much, then I will instinctively default to giving the album the benefit of the doubt. A lot of it doesn't work, some of it does work, but that's not the point: to me, the point is that Metallica had the sheer balls to do it. They could have gone the easy way, sure, and just released the follow-up to "Death Magnetic" as par for the course. No one would have thought less of them.

    But that they ran such a huge risk of people doing just that - that, to me, is almost worth more than another typical heavy metal album. Listening to "Lulu" and Megadeth's "TH1RT3EN" back to back, it hit me that music albums are like vacation pictures. Lots of bands are doing the whole "back to the roots" thing now - Megadeth, Anthrax, Slayer, even Testament, etc. - which seems to be the vogue thing in heavy metal now. And it strikes me that those albums are like going to your favorite vacation spots over and over. It never changes, but it's fun. 

    Metallica are the only ones going to different places. It's weird, it's strange, nobody speaks the language...but at least it's new. It's different. 

    And yeah, at the risk of killing any Internet cred I might have had, I'll take that over the usual holiday photos again.
  • AlexSkolnick
    > you, too, have achieved a level of musical flexibility
    and maneuverability that lots of other metal musicians either avoid, or
    only dream of.

        I suppose that's true. After ten+ years of doing my own thing and resisting the stereotypes others try to inflict on me, it seems like there is finally a level of freedom, acceptance and even appreciation of individuality not afforded many other musicians. Sure, I wouldn't mind the higher tax-bracket, but not at the expense of my own integrity.

       > Megadeth, Anthrax, Slayer, even Testament, etc. - which seems to be the
    vogue thing in heavy metal now.

          You're absolutely right. I do think the 'roots' thing is the right move for those bands. I admit at times wishing Testament could be more adventurous (not doing projects like 'Lulu, per se, but shaking things up just a little bit more). But the other guys don't think that way and I respect that.  I'm happy leaving the experimentation for my other projects, such as AST.

        >And it strikes me that those albums are
    like going to your favorite vacation spots over and over. It never
    changes, but it's fun. Metallica are the only ones going to
    different places. It's weird, it's strange, nobody speaks the
    language...but at least it's new. It's different. And yeah, at the risk of killing any Internet cred I might have had, I'll take that over the usual holiday photos again.

          Very good analogy. The general public may not like the different places Metallica is going at this very moment in comparison with their past work. But it was that restlessness of spirit and ability to venture into the unknown which created those classic Metallica albums that we all know and love.
  • Dutchy
    I am the first to admit that I don't really get art. I stood in front of Damon Hurst's formaldehyde fixed half cow and had trouble really seeing it as artistic. Not surprisingly, I'm don't get Lulu. Lou Reed is unlistenable and that is not up for debate, but I will say some of the riffs on it are OK. I don't really hate the music, but Lou gets old fast. I was very aware of his other stuff and probably knew what to expect more than the average metallica fan. I can sort of see why metallica did this, they got to work with Lou Reed, the album was essentially recorded live and they had a blast doing it. Metallica have always pushed the envelope and never done what you thought they would and I do respect that. Sometimes it works (TBA, Load to an extent), sometimes it doesn't (Reload). S+M was a masterpiece as far as I am concerned, it is sonically very powerful. I got that, it worked, it sounded great. Nothing however is as polarizing as Lulu, and maybe that is why they did it. When metallica seem to be in a comfort zone, such as the success of the DM album and tour, they seem to need to do something to shock people. As a professional musician Alex, can you honestly see Metallica sitting in the studio playing this and believing that it sounds great?
  • Dutchy- Don't worry. Most artists don't even get art. ;-) That's why there' always a fancy artist statement. Besides, it's more fun to question art than to "get it." Smart people always ask questions. ;-)
  • Dutchy
    Don't laugh, but I am a scientist. Maybe I have the wrong part of my brain active to get or question "art". I am tempted to buy the CD and hang it on my wall to see if it is aesthetically pleasing. My guess is not.
blog comments powered by Disqus