Final word on Lou, Lulu and Metallica

Jack-Flash-Jr

No copypasta here because of the nsfsite language:

http://theangryfijian.com/2011/10/24/dear-metallica/

I get it, I do, but I still like Loulou.

?

fjcdt

obviously the guy isn't impressed.
Though this post does need an age restriction i cant entirely disagree with him, though im not about to agree with everything, i actually liked mamma said.

IceCreamMan

i like the fac tthat the guys experiment but hate this particular result....

the blogger is right , metallica should of pulled the plug when playing back the material.... made it available for free on napster or something ....

some things in life just dont gel out ,this is one of em ..u just going to alienate yr core base

VellaJ

I see what he's saying. Look, as we experiment, we learn and we can see where our music is taking us. But in this case it didn't pan out...

I thought the blogger could have used a thesaurus once in a while though ?

flatfourfan

I have to agree with the author....................................Metallica are willing to put their name on anything to make a buck....they should just break up and call it a day.

Not that anyone gives a hoot about what I think, but to me, they pretty much closed shop and called it a day before the black album............There was no Metallica after .

flatfourfan

VellaJ wrote I see what he's saying. Look, as we experiment, we learn and we can see where our music is taking us. But in this case it didn't pan out...

I thought the blogger could have used a thesaurus once in a while though ?

.
I think that the blogger got caught up in the moment...Metallica fans are a passionate bunch..............you could see it with the guys blog

Bob-Dubery

IceCreamMan wrote i like the fac tthat the guys experiment but hate this particular result....

the blogger is right , metallica should of pulled the plug when playing back the material.... made it available for free on napster or something ....

some things in life just dont gel out ,this is one of em ..u just going to alienate yr core base

I'm no Metallica fan, I don't hate them either, so I kind of have no stake in this particular game

BUT

I do think artists are entitled to go out on a limb. There's no reason why things shouldn't stay interesting for them too, why they shouldn't get some satisfaction, shouldn't want to extend themselves rather than churning out the same old same old.

There may be other factors involved here too. Metallica might be under pressure to deliver an album and consider this to be a better, more credible bet than a "greatest hits" compilation. They might want to show that they are still creative, still willing to try new things and/or not just after the next dollar.

Maybe the record isn't aimed at their core fan base. Maybe it's a side project, an experiment. It's NOT a Metallica album after all. David Bowie (who has been very hard to pin down over a long career) went off with Tin Machine. Richard Thompson got up to stuff that his core fan base certainly didn't expect with French, Frith, Kaiser and Thompson.

This may be the bravest musical thing that Metallica have done in years. That their fans might recoil doesn't change that. And fans tend to be forgiving. Many a band or artist has turned out a duff record (or an unpopular record - which is not the same thing) and retained their fan base in the long run. When they release another album that touches all the right bases, recycles the key cliches, they'll be forgiven.

Jack-Flash-Jr

X-rated Bob wrote
IceCreamMan wrote i like the fac tthat the guys experiment but hate this particular result....

the blogger is right , metallica should of pulled the plug when playing back the material.... made it available for free on napster or something ....

some things in life just dont gel out ,this is one of em ..u just going to alienate yr core base
I'm no Metallica fan, I don't hate them either, so I kind of have no stake in this particular game

BUT

I do think artists are entitled to go out on a limb. There's no reason why things shouldn't stay interesting for them too, why they shouldn't get some satisfaction, shouldn't want to extend themselves rather than churning out the same old same old.

There may be other factors involved here too. Metallica might be under pressure to deliver an album and consider this to be a better, more credible bet than a "greatest hits" compilation. They might want to show that they are still creative, still willing to try new things and/or not just after the next dollar.

Maybe the record isn't aimed at their core fan base. Maybe it's a side project, an experiment. It's NOT a Metallica album after all. David Bowie (who has been very hard to pin down over a long career) went off with Tin Machine. Richard Thompson got up to stuff that his core fan base certainly didn't expect with French, Frith, Kaiser and Thompson.

This may be the bravest musical thing that Metallica have done in years. That their fans might recoil doesn't change that. And fans tend to be forgiving. Many a band or artist has turned out a duff record (or an unpopular record - which is not the same thing) and retained their fan base in the long run. When they release another album that touches all the right bases, recycles the key cliches, they'll be forgiven.

+1

And people tend to completely forget Lou Reed in this conversation... for a lot of people he is bigger than Metallica, his fans are just less vocal - especially since experimentation is expected from him.
It's going to interesting to see the sales figures (or more probably lack of them)

ParadoximA

1. It's not a MetallicA album. It's not a Lou Reed album. It's a collaboration between the two. The album cover just says Lulu.

2. The money they make off this album will be insignificant compared to what they make off a single tour. There is no way they're doing this for the money. (The record label on the other hand...)

3. Metallica didn't create Kill 'em All by repeating themselves, or by using a formula. They also didn't create it to please anybody else. They did it by playing what they wanted to play at the time, which is exactly what they did with this.

4. They've said that they're fans of Lou Reed, and jumped at the chance to work with him. If you had a chance to work with one of your heroes, would you turn it down just 'cos your fans might not like the result? They're adults and they can do what they want, why should they be asking their fans for permission?

5. Now people are complaining that they're releasing the material? I'd be complaining if they didn't! How could you not be curious about what it sounded like? If you're not interested or you don't like it, then don't buy it. They haven't taken anything away from you.

6. If you want more stuff that sounds just like the first four or five MetallicA albums, pick up your guitar and start writing. MetallicA have already been there, done that and given it their best shot - why should they repeat themselves? They still perform the old stuff live for their fans, what more can you really ask for? They're rich enough that they never need to work another day if they don't want to, they perform 'cos they've still got some life in them and they want to do something with it.

Seventhson

ParadoximA wrote 1. It's not a MetallicA album. It's not a Lou Reed album. It's a collaboration between the two. The album cover just says Lulu.

2. The money they make off this album will be insignificant compared to what they make off a single tour. There is no way they're doing this for the money. (The record label on the other hand...)

3. Metallica didn't create Kill 'em All by repeating themselves, or by using a formula. They also didn't create it to please anybody else. They did it by playing what they wanted to play at the time, which is exactly what they did with this.

4. They've said that they're fans of Lou Reed, and jumped at the chance to work with him. If you had a chance to work with one of your heroes, would you turn it down just 'cos your fans might not like the result? They're adults and they can do what they want, why should they be asking their fans for permission?

5. Now people are complaining that they're releasing the material? I'd be complaining if they didn't! How could you not be curious about what it sounded like? If you're not interested or you don't like it, then don't buy it. They haven't taken anything away from you.

6. If you want more stuff that sounds just like the first four or five MetallicA albums, pick up your guitar and start writing. MetallicA have already been there, done that and given it their best shot - why should they repeat themselves? They still perform the old stuff live for their fans, what more can you really ask for? They're rich enough that they never need to work another day if they don't want to, they perform 'cos they've still got some life in them and they want to do something with it.

You know dave mustiane wrote most of the riffs for kill em all. And I reckon most of ride the lighting. Just saying ?

FruitarGeek

I think 'old' bands struggle to write fresh material that still sounds like them. I mean, how do you write something new if you have grown as a muscian, thus you learn to move past 4 chords, and with recording technology, you sound much more refined. Take the ACDC Album, I was disgraced to hear, yet, if you ask me, the riffs and the chords sounded similiar to their older stuff, but what was different?

I'm sure if the Stones or Beatles (if they could) write new stuff, it would sound crap as well. People hold on to their old stuff for dear life, so the second that something comes as new and untested, people get upset. Death Magnetic, it sounds kinda similiar to the other stuff, from a production point of view, you can hear its more refined, but what has changed? How does a band just lose its song creation process? Is it the band that has changed, or the listeners expectation?