Lulu
by Lou Reed
Metascore
45

Mixed or average reviews - based on 31 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 31
  2. Mixed: 12 out of 31
  3. Negative: 13 out of 31
  1. NOW Magazine
    Nov 7, 2011
    20
    Lulu sinks to almost unimaginable lows.
  2. Boston Globe
    Nov 2, 2011
    10
    The godfather of avant-rock and the popular metal band don't click on any level.
  3. Blurt Magazine
    Nov 2, 2011
    20
    It turns out that "Brandenburg Gate" is one of the only songs with an actual melody. The rest of Lulu is full of recycled, repetitive riffs; endless drones; more sex and violence than a slasher movie.
  5. The A.V. Club
    Nov 1, 2011
    25
    An utter wreck that curiously, miraculously, might have been great.
  6. Pitchfork
    Nov 1, 2011
    10
    Audacious to the extreme, but exhaustingly tedious as a result, its few interesting ideas are stretched out beyond the point of utility and pounded into submission.
  7. Tiny Mix Tapes
    Nov 1, 2011
    20
    Lulu is a joyless mess, a grim, humorless record with no notion of when to say "when."
  8. Chicago Tribune
    Oct 31, 2011
    25
    LuLu is a work that invites derision, an album that wallows in a tarpit of ugliness.
  9. Beats Per Minute
    Oct 31, 2011
    30
    The whole thing comes off as either an expensive major label joke or nigh-impenetrable high art concept. Maybe both.
  10. PopMatters
    Oct 31, 2011
    10
    At no point does Lou Reed sound like he is singing with Metallica, and the same is true the other way around.
  11. Entertainment Weekly
    Oct 28, 2011
    25
    The bulk of Lulu sounds like your dad's drunk friend reciting his self-penned erotica over a melting ReLoad cassette.
  12. Consequence
    Oct 28, 2011
    30
    Lulu is essentially a piece of shock art that's littered with vulgarity both lyrical and musical.
  13. Sputnikmusic
    Oct 26, 2011
    30
    Any message contained within Lulu is lost in the whirl of discordant guitar work, Reed's mutterings and the complete sense of abject disappointment that surrounds the entire album.
  14. The Quietus
    Oct 26, 2011
    0
    Not only is Lulu the worst thing any of the players have been involved in, it's quite possibly a candidate for one of the worst albums ever made.

Awards & Rankings

14
#14 Most Discussed Album of 2011
86
#86 Most Shared Album of 2011

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
2.3

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 233 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 36 out of 233
  2. Mixed: 24 out of 233
  3. Negative: 173 out of 233
  1. boilingboy1
    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. JeffWrubel
    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 »
See all user reviews »