Monday, October 24, 2011
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Friday, October 21, 2011
Lou Reed/Metallica "Lulu" Review
"it's interesting, but i wouldn't listen to it for pleasure"
my thoughts on LULU, in random order:
-what is it about metallica that makes metal fans so hyper-critical? some people have been hating on them since 1984. they're just a band. and they're still better than slayer. the fact that the argument still exists...even after "Load", "Reload", The Napster fiasco, "S&M", "Some Kind of Monster", "St. Anger", and annoyingly referring to themselves as 'Tallica, only proves the strength of their first 5 albums.
-ok, calling yourselves "loutallica" is pretty retarded. but the bright side is: the "loutallica" moniker is probably the worst thing about the album.
-if this were slayer & merzbow, you better believe the bloggers and critics would be creaming all over it.
-did people harp on dave lombardo when he did stuff for john zorn? what about when he joined fantomas? no. because the silly perception persists that slayer is somehow more culturally worthy than metallica.
-there's actually some very cool "and justice for all" type riffs on here, and lou reed's spoken word mumbling doesnt get in the way too much. in fact, reed's frontman presence forces metallica to the role of a backing band, and they pull it off quite well (in some parts). there's very little hetfield on here, and that ends up being a good thing, since it means he just focuses on riffing. and the parts that are scaled back to just lou reed vocal, atonal strings, and lars' random drum spurts are kind of nice.
-this whole project was probably meant to make lou reed (seem) a little more edgy, and make metallica (seem) a little more intelligent.
-when both entities merge at an equal halfway point, it's just downright blaaaaaaaaaaand ("the view", "iced honey"), but when the songs teeter more toward one side or the other, it actually becomes a little interesting ("mistress dread", "little dog")
-most metal reviewers will hate this album. but most of them can't comprehend the idea of an abstracted song structure, which "Lulu" has a lot of, or at the very least, a lot of post-rock type build up tension and release. They're satisfied with chuggachugga riffs that illustrate "metal", told with the same tired 1-2 punch, but wouldnt know what to do with music that actually explores the complexities of tense and maniacal emotion without using illustration. two cheers for showing, not telling.
-for metallica this ends up being an interesting little experiment which will hopefully break them of their notoriously stiff songwriting style. for lou reed, this album does absolutely nothing, except maybe get him on the cover of some obsolete rock magazine for 50 year olds that think wilco make exciting and interesting rock.
-is this supposed to be "pleasant"? is music meant to be listened to for "pleasure"? sure, i've had my share of listening for fun, and it was all really a matter of preferred taste. what i listened to 10-15 years ago was based on personal taste and on no real critical forethought. but in this facet of cultural production, repetition and sentimental memory are rewarded, and uninventive bands and songs are produced over and over again, in virtually every genre of contemporary music--some are at least more forthcoming about it than others (country & top 40)--in an attempt to re-capture "that ol' feelin'". i guess the farther we think we're running away from classical thought, the more we run towards it.
-i really do like slayer.
-all in all, this was a smart musical move for metallica, and pretty much a non-move for lou reed, probably a nice way for him to spend his spring in san francisco.
my thoughts on LULU, in random order:
-what is it about metallica that makes metal fans so hyper-critical? some people have been hating on them since 1984. they're just a band. and they're still better than slayer. the fact that the argument still exists...even after "Load", "Reload", The Napster fiasco, "S&M", "Some Kind of Monster", "St. Anger", and annoyingly referring to themselves as 'Tallica, only proves the strength of their first 5 albums.
-ok, calling yourselves "loutallica" is pretty retarded. but the bright side is: the "loutallica" moniker is probably the worst thing about the album.
-if this were slayer & merzbow, you better believe the bloggers and critics would be creaming all over it.
-did people harp on dave lombardo when he did stuff for john zorn? what about when he joined fantomas? no. because the silly perception persists that slayer is somehow more culturally worthy than metallica.
-there's actually some very cool "and justice for all" type riffs on here, and lou reed's spoken word mumbling doesnt get in the way too much. in fact, reed's frontman presence forces metallica to the role of a backing band, and they pull it off quite well (in some parts). there's very little hetfield on here, and that ends up being a good thing, since it means he just focuses on riffing. and the parts that are scaled back to just lou reed vocal, atonal strings, and lars' random drum spurts are kind of nice.
-this whole project was probably meant to make lou reed (seem) a little more edgy, and make metallica (seem) a little more intelligent.
-when both entities merge at an equal halfway point, it's just downright blaaaaaaaaaaand ("the view", "iced honey"), but when the songs teeter more toward one side or the other, it actually becomes a little interesting ("mistress dread", "little dog")
-most metal reviewers will hate this album. but most of them can't comprehend the idea of an abstracted song structure, which "Lulu" has a lot of, or at the very least, a lot of post-rock type build up tension and release. They're satisfied with chuggachugga riffs that illustrate "metal", told with the same tired 1-2 punch, but wouldnt know what to do with music that actually explores the complexities of tense and maniacal emotion without using illustration. two cheers for showing, not telling.
-for metallica this ends up being an interesting little experiment which will hopefully break them of their notoriously stiff songwriting style. for lou reed, this album does absolutely nothing, except maybe get him on the cover of some obsolete rock magazine for 50 year olds that think wilco make exciting and interesting rock.
-is this supposed to be "pleasant"? is music meant to be listened to for "pleasure"? sure, i've had my share of listening for fun, and it was all really a matter of preferred taste. what i listened to 10-15 years ago was based on personal taste and on no real critical forethought. but in this facet of cultural production, repetition and sentimental memory are rewarded, and uninventive bands and songs are produced over and over again, in virtually every genre of contemporary music--some are at least more forthcoming about it than others (country & top 40)--in an attempt to re-capture "that ol' feelin'". i guess the farther we think we're running away from classical thought, the more we run towards it.
-i really do like slayer.
-all in all, this was a smart musical move for metallica, and pretty much a non-move for lou reed, probably a nice way for him to spend his spring in san francisco.
And now for my favorite Metallica concert clip from YouTube:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)