Metascore
45

Mixed or average reviews - based on 31 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 31
  2. Negative: 13 out of 31
  1. Kerrang!
    Nov 17, 2011
    60
    LuLu is an album that will require many plays before the music contained within beings to make sense. [29 Oct 2011, p.50]
  2. 60
    It takes some commitment, and maybe a little homework, to get the most out of the album.
  3. Nov 1, 2011
    60
    Things can get ponderous once Metallica start impatiently stomping, but often they turn Reed's pretensions into something muscular.
  4. Oct 31, 2011
    60
    Ultimately, Lulu is a brave experiment for both Reed and Metallica, but it's one that falters as often as it succeeds.
  5. Oct 27, 2011
    60
    Reed's words dictate the musical structure. Often, Metallica simply fall in behind them in a free-form drone. Like much of Reed's late-period work, this is abstract and literary but even by his standards, Lulu is gruelling.
  6. Nov 1, 2011
    50
    It's not an especially good album, but its failures are noble rather than ignoble-byproducts of ambition rather than hubris.
  7. Q Magazine
    Dec 13, 2011
    40
    Occasionally it's so insane that you can't help but be swept along with it. Mostly, however, it's so over the top the more likely reaction is to run it off and make sure you don't hear it again in a hurry. [Dec. 2011 p. 122]
  8. Nov 11, 2011
    40
    It's not truly terrible, but it does feel akin to a musical version of King Kong Vs. Godzilla, two monsters decimating everything in their path until there's nothing left, except the back catalogues.
  9. Nov 4, 2011
    40
    Up until Lulu, I didn't think it was possible to be both enamored and disgusted at the same time. Mind? Blown.
  10. Oct 31, 2011
    40
    It's not a successful union: the songs are too close to aimless, unfinished jams, Reed sounds as if he's trying too hard to be controversial and at 95 minutes it's far too long.
  11. 40
    It's not hard to see why both parties agreed to the alliance--Metallica gain artistic cachet, Reed gains an audience--but it is not an alliance that welcomes listeners with open arms.
  12. Oct 27, 2011
    40
    There's an insurmountable disjunction between the sound of Metallica doing their nut in the background and Reed's papery old voice rambling away upfront.
User Score
2.3

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 233 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 36 out of 233
  1. Nov 1, 2011
    0
    I've seen several comments online where bloggers say we "don't get it". Anyone who says this is avant garde music has little experienceI've seen several comments online where bloggers say we "don't get it". Anyone who says this is avant garde music has little experience with that genre. Dangerous, abrasive and compelling are all hallmarks of avant rock. This is just an embarrassment made by two creatively bankrupt artists. Please stop your Metallica hero worship and hear this album for what it is: Crap. Full Review »
  2. WD2
    Nov 1, 2011
    4
    The only saving grace for this album may be that it is not the worst album of 2011; Theory of a Deadman already clinched that honor back inThe only saving grace for this album may be that it is not the worst album of 2011; Theory of a Deadman already clinched that honor back in the summer. But Lou Reed's nasally delivery just doesn't fit, it comes off as some uninspired old fart recording his voice in the living room while a metal riff plays in the background. As Allmusic wrote, this would have worked far better with an ambient band such as Sunn 0))) than with Metallica. Full Review »
  3. Nov 1, 2011
    8
    As I've gotten older I've found my tastes and .. acceptance of things outside my comfort zone (music, philosophy, etc) growing as my views ofAs I've gotten older I've found my tastes and .. acceptance of things outside my comfort zone (music, philosophy, etc) growing as my views of the world in which we live change. The key to getting enjoyment (or understanding?) out of Lulu, for me, is to accept that I have to listen to it on it's own terms. Listening to it as a Metallica fan, a metal fan, a music fan, will lead to listening to something that on the face may seem unlistenable. My impression of this album has grown considerably since first listen. Last night was the first time I actually sat down, and listened to it cover to cover. Honestly, I was kind of dreading its darkness and it felt like I had to do a homework assignment. So, I grabbed my best headphones, and set into it. I think a key thing I did was I pulled up the lyrics to each song online as I listened and followed closely along. I think that really helped put me into the music. They've always said the lyrics are the key, the music augmentation and manifestation of the feeling of those lyrics. Lyrics aren't really the correct term, it's more spoken word poetry than anything. As far as Lou's voice: As one review I read put it, it's like "an oil slick sitting on top of an ocean of metal". I agree, I think the discordance is all a part of the art. This is supposed to be uncomfortable, a difficult listen, I think that's a part of it. Once you get acclimated to the voice, and really listen, word for word, song to song, there is true dark art there. Eventually you become a victim of the flow of the moment, as Lou and Metallica became in the 10 days they put this together. If you've ever been in an emotionally violent, destructive relationship, or loved someone who took everything you could give, and returned only their emptiness back to you: this can make you identify with it to an extent. To listen with any expectation from Metallica's past or future is a mistake. Lulu is outside of that, and to listen influenced by those expectations, you won't appreciate it. You'll probably hate it. Lou Reed has been interested for some time with expanding narrative work to build music around it and create kind of a literary fusion of long form story and music. Lulu is exploring that. It's as much narrative as it is music, if not more. The words he brought in to this project are brilliant. They're real. They paint a devastating portrait of two amoral and destructive people. They are at the darkest end of the spectrum of humanity. If you can dive down into your own emotional blackness without losing your equilibrium and knowing when to come back up to draw breath, you can appreciate this fully, I think. Provocative art always has a way of polarizing people to either love or hate it. Lulu is not a metal album, not just a story, but it's own fusion of provocative, violent art. It is brilliant to that end. People complain about a lack of musicality, and that only means you cite a lack of musicality within your own comfort zones and constricted definitions of what musicality can mean. You have to allow yourself to experience this on it's own terms. Not on your terms. I'm not saying you need to remove subjectivity and just blindly accept it. But listen to it on it's terms, if you can, and then judge it. If you're unable or unwilling to listen that way, with more than just your ears and expectations, then you shouldn't judge it either. You should just ignore its existence. Lou Reed and Metallica are both artists that have earned the privilege of doing things on their own terms, and it's a sign of respect to view their collaborative art on those terms. You can then choose to accept or reject it. I happen to accept it, and I'll take from it what I can. This will probably get me more into avante-garde type music and further my own horizons of music and understanding, and to me that's a beautiful thing. I accept the terms. Thanks for reading. Full Review »