Worst??? How.....

Where We Go ?
Lou Reed

Worst album of all time. Nothing more to say...

ZERO rating should be an option here. Really disturbing noise

Crappiest shit ever!! 0/10

Written by Illwill on 31.10.2011 at 18:05
ZERO rating should be an option here. Really disturbing noise

Agreed. I had to change my opinions of a "1" on this site because 0 doesn't exist.

Ha. Within 24 hours of it's release, it ambitiously takes the #1 spot on our shittiest albums of all time list.

First album I've rated with a '1'. What an oozing pile of shit. Reed's 'vocals' are a total snoozefest. Secondly the drums are so extremely boring and repetitive. FFS get your act together and make some proper metal already!

Written by Doc G. on 31.10.2011 at 21:22

Ha. Within 24 hours of it's release, it ambitiously takes the #1 spot on our shittiest albums of all time list.

It's funny how my rating is above the average
It is pretty damn bad although I did find some moments (when no one was "singing") that I found okay but they obviously couldn't help this album at all specially considering how awfully long it is. 4 at the moment although I can see it turning into a 3 but not lower, I've heard far worse and I'm still amused at the responses.... It's like people have never heard shitty music. This is shitty... yes, but there is far worse shit music around being also quite visible.

Anyways... A few days ago I read the review the newspaper from my city gave it. It's probably the best/funniest review I've read from that newspaper, here's a close translation:

Quote:
Metallica has finally disappeared into their own assholes for ever. The band moves over the earth like a giant ass, Loe Reed it's ridder. The nefarious combo farts on humanity's face - Open the ventilation!
They have created an absurd mockery of Rock whose nearest reference is Trey Parker / Matt Stone. The South-Park duo could never write such a brutal parody though. The worthlessness is too unthinkable, the poetry too pathetic, the music too non-existant. This is just disgusting noise created by superstars whose core consists of Chernobyl.
All the ratings above the lowest level are a lie. Metallica/Reed kick the bottom out of the barrel. All fall head over heels.

Best song: Nice joke

Written by Angelic Storm on 31.10.2011 at 09:25

It's not a real Metallica album, so I don't judge it as such.

That's true, but it doesn't matter. If you sign an album as its co-creator, you're bound to become recipient of praise/bashing. Especially when a big band like Metallica does such a thing.

Written by X-Ray Rod on 31.10.2011 at 22:57

It's funny how my rating is above the average
It is pretty damn bad although I did find some moments (when no one was "singing") that I found okay but they obviously couldn't help this album at all specially considering how awfully long it is. 4 at the moment although I can see it turning into a 3 but not lower, I've heard far worse and I'm still amused at the responses.... It's like people have never heard shitty music. This is shitty... yes, but there is far worse shit music around being also quite visible.

The thing is, you have to look at who's behind it. If it were some high school band or some band of entry-level musicians giving their first swing at an album, you could say "Well, it sucks, but they're still green, so whatever." Both Metallica & Lou Reed on the other hand are celebrated artists. The promotion for this album set out to make it look like this was going to be some super-team collaboration.

This album almost seems like their mid-life crisis' all aligned at the exact same time, but instead of buying a convertible and getting a hot young stripper girlfriend like most people do, they decided to try and record an "edgy" album and shove it down our throats.

To sum things up; it's the sound of a bunch of rich yuppies trying to be edgy. That's why it's receiving abnormal amounts of flak.

...Wait, where have you heard shittier music? Christ, I would take Babylon Mystery Orchestra over this.

After years of searching, I finally get to use the "1" rating. What a priceless moment...

Written by Doc G. on 31.10.2011 at 23:15

The thing is, you have to look at who's behind it. If it were some high school band or some band of entry-level musicians giving their first swing at an album, you could say "Well, it sucks, but they're still green, so whatever." Both Metallica & Lou Reed on the other hand are celebrated artists. The promotion for this album set out to make it look like this was going to be some super-team collaboration.
This album almost seems like their mid-life crisis' all aligned at the exact same time, but instead of buying a convertible and getting a hot young stripper girlfriend like most people do, they decided to try and record an "edgy" album and shove it down our throats.

To sum things up; it's the sound of a bunch of rich yuppies trying to be edgy. That's why it's receiving abnormal amounts of flak.

...Wait, where have you heard shittier music? Christ, I would take Babylon Mystery Orchestra over this.

Well, you have convinced me to make it a 3 but yeah, it's not going to get lower than that. BMO is easily worse tbh same as other shit like vampires everywhere and the Browning.

Written by Daniell on 31.10.2011 at 22:59
That's true, but it doesn't matter. If you sign an album as its co-creator, you're bound to become recipient of praise/bashing. Especially when a big band like Metallica does such a thing.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be bashed for participating in the making of the album. I may not view "Lulu" as a "proper Metallica" album, but just for being involved with this very misguided and ill-fated project, they deserve some criticsm. Of course the fact that it's Metallica means that the level of venom this is recieving is perhaps a tad OTT and out of proportion, but whichever way you look at it, they majorly screwed up here. Not least, as many (including me) thought the band were starting to find their feet again with "Death Magnetic". It's not a real Metallica album, so whatever their next album is like, it will be measured against their other albums, in particular "Death Magnetic". I do admire them for not playing it safe, and doing something outside of the box, even if the result is pretty terrible. But the album is really awful, so they do deserve a lot of criticsm for that. I defended St. Anger, despite it's very obvious flaws and trying to pander to the musical trends of that time. (or at least Lars and Bob Rock did) But I can't defend this album, at least not any musical merits...

Written by Angelic Storm on 01.11.2011 at 00:54


I do admire them for not playing it safe, and doing something outside of the box, even if the result is pretty terrible.

Whenever Metallica tries "not to play safe", the result is terrible. Source: (RE)Load songs such as "The House that Jack Built". Lets face it, the only time Metallica is good, is when they play thrash, or at least some "harder" rock. As soon as they begin with the proggy moments and experimental passages, the whole thing collapses like a house of cards.

Srsly, at this point in their carrier, I don't get them. They desperately want to be this revolutionary, avanguarde, experimental proggy band, who reinvents trends while being conteporary - dispite the fact that they allready tried to be like that dozens of times before, failing miserably every single time. It's like they are becoming ashamed of the fact that they are (were) a thrash metal band.

The Montreal Gazette gave this 5 stars.

Out of 5.

That's 100% for those of you who aren't good with math.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 01.11.2011 at 10:32

The Montreal Gazette gave this 5 stars.

Out of 5.

That's 100% for those of you who aren't good with math.

Imho the vast majority of mainstreem media will give this monstrosity high rates.

It'll be like:

(reviewer who usually listens to pop or some light rock, they're always like that)
"Wow, this is so heavy. I mean, they play guitars, and Reed is talking! This is so new and refreshing. Sure, it sounds lame to me, but who am I to question Metallica and Lou Reed? I don't want to come out as stupid, so I'll just give this 5stars/98%/4.9 whatever".


Anyways, sitting back, waiting for the RS review.

Written by malaikat on 01.11.2011 at 10:20
Whenever Metallica tries "not to play safe", the result is terrible. Source: (RE)Load songs such as "The House that Jack Built". Lets face it, the only time Metallica is good, is when they play thrash, or at least some "harder" rock. As soon as they begin with the proggy moments and experimental passages, the whole thing collapses like a house of cards.

Srsly, at this point in their carrier, I don't get them. They desperately want to be this revolutionary, avanguarde, experimental proggy band, who reinvents trends while being conteporary - dispite the fact that they allready tried to be like that dozens of times before, failing miserably every single time. It's like they are becoming ashamed of the fact that they are (were) a thrash metal band.

You do realise that Metallica have had "proggy moments and experimental passages" as far back as "Ride The Lightning, right? "Call Of Ktulu" was very proggy and experimental, and "Fade To Black" was also experimental, as at that time, it was the first ballad ever written by a thrash band. I very much like "Load", (not so much "Reload", although it does have some good songs) so I don't agree that every time they haven't played safe, the result has been terrible.

The main reason why "Lulu" is such a failure, is because the style of Lou Reed doesn't mix at all with metal music. And it feels as if the metal (the riffs in particular) has been dumbed down considerably in order to accomodate the different style being worked with. I really don't think Metallica are ashamed of the fact that they are/were a thrash band. They're just open to trying new things, and new music. Which doesn't always work, but they're just doing as they please, and you can't argue with that. Metallica have never followed the pack, even when they were a proper thrash band in the 80's. In any case, "Lulu" was a huge mistake, and I hope the next album is purely focussed only on metal, and not the dumbed down sort that was on "Lulu".

Written by Angelic Storm on 01.11.2011 at 10:40

Written by malaikat on 01.11.2011 at 10:20
Whenever Metallica tries "not to play safe", the result is terrible. Source: (RE)Load songs such as "The House that Jack Built". Lets face it, the only time Metallica is good, is when they play thrash, or at least some "harder" rock. As soon as they begin with the proggy moments and experimental passages, the whole thing collapses like a house of cards.

Srsly, at this point in their carrier, I don't get them. They desperately want to be this revolutionary, avanguarde, experimental proggy band, who reinvents trends while being conteporary - dispite the fact that they allready tried to be like that dozens of times before, failing miserably every single time. It's like they are becoming ashamed of the fact that they are (were) a thrash metal band.

You do realise that Metallica have had "proggy moments and experimental passages" as far back as "Ride The Lightning, right? "Call Of Ktulu" was very proggy and experimental, and "Fade To Black" was also experimental, as at that time, it was the first ballad ever written by a thrash band. I very much like "Load", (not so much "Reload", although it does have some good songs) so I don't agree that every time they haven't played safe, the result has been terrible.

The main reason why "Lulu" is such a failure, is because the style of Lou Reed doesn't mix at all with metal music. And it feels as if the metal (the riffs in particular) has been dumbed down considerably in order to accomodate the different style being worked with. I really don't think Metallica are ashamed of the fact that they are/were a thrash band. They're just open to trying new things, and new music. Which doesn't always work, but they're just doing as they please, and you can't argue with that. Metallica have never followed the pack, even when they were a proper thrash band in the 80's. In any case, "Lulu" was a huge mistake, and I hope the next album is purely focussed only on metal, and not the dumbed down sort that was on "Lulu".

Those songs weren't proggy at all - they were just a little different than 99% of other thrash songs. Being different isn't being proggy by default. By that standars, Iron Maiden is actually a prog band. Also by that standards, Slayer's guitar solos are actually avanguarde, in the likes of Unexpect or smth.
It's just thrash: some is better, some is original, but it's all thrash. LULU and that song I mentioned - I don't know what that is (in a bad way).

And, sorry, I can't appreciate the band solely on the fact that "they are trying something new". I could try something new, I could use two cats and bang them together, call it catblack metal, will you praise just because I'm being original? No. There are plenty of other bands that never followed the pack (as you said), and are ten times better than Metallica in "not-following the pack". It's like some guys argument here, that we should in fact cherish the "I am a Table" lyric because it's a metaphor - being a metaphore doesn't justify bad lyrics, being experimental doesn't justify bad music. Solid music maybe, bud bad music never.
I appreciate the band based on the music and, as of yesterday, Metallica has released more bad albums than the good ones. And that's too coming from a man who defended them during St. Anger phase.

It's my first time ever for a "this Metallica album sucks!". Currently giving it a second spin to decide wether it deserves a 1, 2 or 3. Let's see where I end up.

Written by malaikat on 01.11.2011 at 10:49
Those songs weren't proggy at all - they were just a little different than 99% of other thrash songs. Being different isn't being proggy by default. By that standars, Iron Maiden is actually a prog band. Also by that standards, Slayer's guitar solos are actually avanguarde, in the likes of Unexpect or smth.
It's just thrash: some is better, some is original, but it's all thrash. LULU and that song I mentioned - I don't know what that is (in a bad way).

And, sorry, I can't appreciate the band solely on the fact that "they are trying something new". I could try something new, I could use two cats and bang them together, call it catblack metal, will you praise just because I'm being original? No. There are plenty of other bands that never followed the pack (as you said), and are ten times better than Metallica in "not-following the pack". It's like some guys argument here, that we should in fact cherish the "I am a Table" lyric because it's a metaphor - being a metaphore doesn't justify bad lyrics, being experimental doesn't justify bad music. Solid music maybe, bud bad music never.
I appreciate the band based on the music and, as of yesterday, Metallica has released more bad albums than the good ones. And that's too coming from a man who defended them during St. Anger phase.

"Call Of Ktulu" perfectly meets the criteria required in order to be considered prog. The song is long, it doesn't have a standard song structure, and is very different to run-of the-mill thrash/metal. Maiden aren't a prog band, but they definitely have progressive elements in many of their songs. And some of their songs are full-blown prog.

No, I wouldn't praise banging two cats together, because that's animal abuse. lol I can appreciate music if talent has gone into making it, regardless of whether I like it or not. And just because I admire Metallica for not playing it safe, doesn't mean I admire the end product, or even like it. As for the "I am a table" lyric, I think the level of scorn levelled at that is totally out of proportion, and OTT. There's far worse lyrics than that in existence, that don't attract the same level of ridicule as that one. In any case, Lou Reed wrote the lyrics, so that's something Metallica can't be attacked for. I never ever said that being experimental justified bad music, you can praise a band for being daring without praising the end product. Or at least I can.

Not counting "Lulu", Metallica have only released two sub-par albums ("Reload", and "St. Anger") in my eyes.

Written by Troy Killjoy on 31.10.2011 at 10:11

Written by RockeRoy on 31.10.2011 at 09:56
i hope everyone who is making fun of "I am the table" understand it's a metafor?

You're implying that all metaphors are good. I am the table(t) is incredibly stupid no matter how you look at it.

Not all metaphors are good, but remember that the lyricist often have a clever thought about it and you don't necessary understand it. And the lyrics is " i am the tablet" not table. a tablet is the same as a pill. Whats stupid about that? even if he was singing i am the table, i could come up with alot of cool things that could be a metaphor for.

Written by Angelic Storm on 01.11.2011 at 11:31



"Call Of Ktulu" perfectly meets the criteria required in order to be considered prog. The song is long, it doesn't have a standard song structure, and is very different to run-of the-mill thrash/metal. Maiden aren't a prog band, but they definitely have progressive elements in many of their songs. And some of their songs are full-blown prog.

No, I wouldn't praise banging two cats together, because that's animal abuse. lol I can appreciate music if talent has gone into making it, regardless of whether I like it or not. And just because I admire Metallica for not playing it safe, doesn't mean I admire the end product, or even like it. As for the "I am a table" lyric, I think the level of scorn levelled at that is totally out of proportion, and OTT. There's far worse lyrics than that in existence, that don't attract the same level of ridicule as that one. In any case, Lou Reed wrote the lyrics, so that's something Metallica can't be attacked for. I never ever said that being experimental justified bad music, you can praise a band for being daring without praising the end product. Or at least I can.

Not counting "Lulu", Metallica have only released two sub-par albums ("Reload", and "St. Anger") in my eyes.

Ok, whatever. I'm certanly not going to fight on LULU board, because that would mean actually giving a damn.
Bottom line: LULU sucks, Metallica lost its way, and song being long is under no circumstances a criteria for a prog song. + I don't see what so unstandard in it's song structure, it's basically one long thrash song consisting of numerous mid-tempo thrash riffs and bridges. + as a literature professor and critic (I hate bringing that up), I can easilly say that "I am a table" is a terrible, terrible metaphor on so many levels, even compared to majoritiy of metal lyrics.

But anyhoo, LULU sucks.

Written by RockeRoy on 01.11.2011 at 11:35


Not all metaphors are good, but remember that the lyricist often have a clever thought about it and you don't necessary understand it. And the lyrics is " i am the tablet" not table. a tablet is the same as a pill. Whats stupid about that? even if he was singing i am the table, i could come up with alot of cool things that could be a metaphor for.

No. Just no. In your theory, you could write just about anything and just use "Oh you don't understand it" as a excuse. Believe me, I have heard this a lot of times. You can always come up with "a lot of cool things that could be a metaphor for", that's how human mind/imagination works.
On the other hand, it's not how the poetry works.

And check the lyrics, he says "table" and "tablet" respectivelly.

Btw "I am a teblet" is just as pretentious and lame as "I am a table".

Written by malaikat on 01.11.2011 at 11:41
Ok, whatever. I'm certanly not going to fight on LULU board, because that would mean actually giving a damn.
Bottom line: LULU sucks, Metallica lost its way, and song being long is under no circumstances a criteria for a prog song. + I don't see what so unstandard in it's song structure, it's basically one long thrash song consisting of numerous mid-tempo thrash riffs and bridges. + as a literature professor and critic (I hate bringing that up), I can easilly say that "I am a table" is a terrible, terrible metaphor on so many levels, even compared to majoritiy of metal lyrics.

But anyhoo, LULU sucks.

I never fight, merely debate. lol

The one area where I do agree with you, is that Lulu is terrible, and Metallica definitely made a big mistake in getting involved in the project.

I didn't say "Call Of Ktulu" was prog just because it was long. Of course the song structure isn't standard. (Standard as being: Intro/main riff, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge and/or solo, verse/chorus) Also, standard songs don't contain "numerous riffs".

Within the concept/story of the album, "I am the table" could be a perfectly sound metaphor. I can't argue it one way or the other, because I still haven't heard the whole album, and the concept is probably lost on me anyway. Taken out of context, it does sound like a ridiculous line, but who knows, within the context of the concept, it might make perfect sense...

Written by malaikat on 01.11.2011 at 11:46

Written by RockeRoy on 01.11.2011 at 11:35


Not all metaphors are good, but remember that the lyricist often have a clever thought about it and you don't necessary understand it. And the lyrics is " i am the tablet" not table. a tablet is the same as a pill. Whats stupid about that? even if he was singing i am the table, i could come up with alot of cool things that could be a metaphor for.

No. Just no. In your theory, you could write just about anything and just use "Oh you don't understand it" as a excuse. Believe me, I have heard this a lot of times. You can always come up with "a lot of cool things that could be a metaphor for", that's how human mind/imagination works.
On the other hand, it's not how the poetry works.

And check the lyrics, he says "table" and "tablet" respectivelly.

Btw "I am a teblet" is just as pretentious and lame as "I am a table".

realy? well it happens to be different for me, i like lyrics thats not crystal clear and i have to make my own interpretation of it. You make it sound like imagination is a bad thing. And that is exactly how poetry works man, have you never read a poem?
I checked the lyrics, and in every lyric of the song i find, it's always Tablet never table.

Written by Angelic Storm on 01.11.2011 at 11:58

Written by malaikat on 01.11.2011 at 11:41
Ok, whatever. I'm certanly not going to fight on LULU board, because that would mean actually giving a damn.
Bottom line: LULU sucks, Metallica lost its way, and song being long is under no circumstances a criteria for a prog song. + I don't see what so unstandard in it's song structure, it's basically one long thrash song consisting of numerous mid-tempo thrash riffs and bridges. + as a literature professor and critic (I hate bringing that up), I can easilly say that "I am a table" is a terrible, terrible metaphor on so many levels, even compared to majoritiy of metal lyrics.

But anyhoo, LULU sucks.

I never fight, merely debate. lol

The one area where I do agree with you, is that Lulu is terrible, and Metallica definitely made a big mistake in getting involved in the project.

I didn't say "Call Of Ktulu" was prog just because it was long. Of course the song structure isn't standard. (Standard as being: Intro/main riff, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge and/or solo, verse/chorus) Also, standard songs don't contain "numerous riffs".

Within the concept/story of the album, "I am the table" could be a perfectly sound metaphor. I can't argue it one way or the other, because I still haven't heard the whole album, and the concept is probably lost on me anyway. Taken out of context, it does sound like a ridiculous line, but who knows, within the context of the concept, it might make perfect sense...

This go on forever, but ok - we just have "too" opposing views on music and the genre specifics

Trust me, I've been through LULU lyirics, especially lyircs of "The View". That line is just a four-word symbol of how attrocious and overly pretentious the lyrics (and the whole album for that matter)are. Ther is no context in the world that would make that sound right. It's one of "thooooose" lyrics - lyricst that are badly written and undecipherable, and the lyrics which will be defended by a small number of pseudo-intelectualls.

They tried to make the lyrics sound dark yet clever, bizzare yet rational. They failed misserably.

Written by RockeRoy on 01.11.2011 at 12:04

Written by malaikat on 01.11.2011 at 11:46

Written by RockeRoy on 01.11.2011 at 11:35


Not all metaphors are good, but remember that the lyricist often have a clever thought about it and you don't necessary understand it. And the lyrics is " i am the tablet" not table. a tablet is the same as a pill. Whats stupid about that? even if he was singing i am the table, i could come up with alot of cool things that could be a metaphor for.

No. Just no. In your theory, you could write just about anything and just use "Oh you don't understand it" as a excuse. Believe me, I have heard this a lot of times. You can always come up with "a lot of cool things that could be a metaphor for", that's how human mind/imagination works.
On the other hand, it's not how the poetry works.

And check the lyrics, he says "table" and "tablet" respectivelly.

Btw "I am a teblet" is just as pretentious and lame as "I am a table".

realy? well it happens to be different for me, i like lyrics thats not crystal clear and i have to make my own interpretation of it. You make it sound like imagination is a bad thing. And that is exactly how poetry works man, have you never read a poem?
I checked the lyrics, and in every lyric of the song i find, it's always Tablet never table.

Dude, I'm a literature professor and prose/poetry critic. I can write you an essay on the subject of crappines of this lyrics.

And I'm certanly not going to discuss "how the poetry works" on this thread. If you want to shed some light on the subject, start with Hugo Friedrich's "Structure of a modern poetry" (Die Struktur der modernen Lyrik), it adresses the problems of poem analysis you brought up.

But in short: you can make your own interpretation of ANYTHING. If poetry worked the way you imagine it, there would be no good or bad poets: everyone would be the same, because, hey you can just "make your own interpretation", meaning that there is no poetic abbility - whatever you write, no matter how bad it is, someone can see something in it and call it good. That's just subjective view on the poetry: "I like what I like, I see whatever I see".
That's the difference between the good and the bad poets, between Walt Whitman and some shmuck like Lou Reed, the ability to project his own imagionation into his reader's mind, and not just allow the reader to read what he wants to read.

Sincerelly, I think the lyrics of LULU are one of the worst things ever writen... it only makes me think that the person who wrote them is mentally ill or perverted... it's quite disgusting... if only the music was bad and the lyrics were good, then it would make the album bearable... but what they sing just make the album even worse

Written by Angelic Storm on 01.11.2011 at 11:31

"Call Of Ktulu" perfectly meets the criteria required in order to be considered prog. The song is long, it doesn't have a standard song structure, and is very different to run-of the-mill thrash/metal.

Those are not criteria of prog per-se, more like characteristics. In a very broad use of the term (that's how its used these days anyway) I'd agree that "Call Of Ktulu" can be considered as prog, as with bits and pieces of "...and Justice For All."