User Score
2.3

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 212 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 34 out of 212

Review this album

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 10, 2011
    6
    There are a lot of problems with this cd. First, I am not a Metallica fan and I thought they did not deliver. However, they do not shoulder all of the blame. Half of of the songs are decent but the other half really suck. Little Dog and Mistress Dread really dreadful. Junior Dad starts out as a classic Lou emotiomal song piece but collappes under the weight of pure musical **** I cannotThere are a lot of problems with this cd. First, I am not a Metallica fan and I thought they did not deliver. However, they do not shoulder all of the blame. Half of of the songs are decent but the other half really suck. Little Dog and Mistress Dread really dreadful. Junior Dad starts out as a classic Lou emotiomal song piece but collappes under the weight of pure musical **** I cannot decide whwther Lou and Metallicala are **** with us or really trying to experimement. Knowing Lou's track reord, the joke is on us. A damn shame! Expand
  2. Oct 10, 2013
    6
    Far from a masterpiece but at the same time, not complete garbage. Lulu is a very mixed bag that will only be appreciated by few. I initially detested this work and wrote it off immediately. However after discovering more about Lou Reed as an artist and his work in The Velvet Underground I began to understand the type of experimental music that Lou Reed was trying to achieve withFar from a masterpiece but at the same time, not complete garbage. Lulu is a very mixed bag that will only be appreciated by few. I initially detested this work and wrote it off immediately. However after discovering more about Lou Reed as an artist and his work in The Velvet Underground I began to understand the type of experimental music that Lou Reed was trying to achieve with Metallica. Metallica's riffs are pretty solid and heavy and if further developed could be groundwork for a pretty cool album. Lou Reeds voice is just as it has always sounded, powerful yet monotone. Fans of Lou Reed would understand exactly what I'm talking about but if you don't, listen to a couple Lou Reed songs. The production on the album is mediocre, Lou Reeds vocals aren't very distinguishable which is a damn shame since he is definitely flexing his poetic muscle in this album. As a longtime Metallica fan I was able to appreciate what they brought to the (ready for it....) table (yeah I just made a Lulu pun, look up I am the table on YouTube) and appreciated that they were going for a heavy feel for the simplistic riffs. Overall, the album has its highlights like "The View", "Iced Honey" and "Dragon" but fails to execute a lot of what it wanted to do. If you're into experimental music, you'll like this album, and remember to keep an open mind when listening to it. Collapse
  3. Jun 20, 2012
    5
    Personally, the instruments sound awesome (because it's Metallica). They always sound good. It's the singing/talking that drives me wild. I mean, it's ok, but it just gets creepy after you listen to it for a while. So basically, the 5 comes from the Metallica part of the album, where as the other 5 that aren't there come from the Lou Reed part of the album.
  4. Sep 6, 2013
    5
    This album is weird. Not in a good sense, either. First of all, we need to take Metallica out of the equation, since they are basically session men here perhaps the greatest limit of Lulu is that it doesn't use all its creative resources. Even weirder, Metallica here are playing some sort of slow-paced hard rock, which is clearly not their thing. Lou Reed is, as expected, baffling. HeThis album is weird. Not in a good sense, either. First of all, we need to take Metallica out of the equation, since they are basically session men here perhaps the greatest limit of Lulu is that it doesn't use all its creative resources. Even weirder, Metallica here are playing some sort of slow-paced hard rock, which is clearly not their thing. Lou Reed is, as expected, baffling. He doesn't sing (can he?), but still manages to speak out of tune and to slip completely off the beat in many occasions. This adds up to an unusual listening experience, which provides nice moments of intellectual satisfaction and a couple of intense, theatrical lines delivered by Mr. Reed. The shorter songs are quite enjoyable (powerhouse The View is the highlight of the album), but they are just not enough to redeem Lulu. Expand
  5. Oct 28, 2013
    5
    Like most experimental metal albums, Lulu take time for listeners to appreciate in fact a lot of time is needed. This is an overly long album (even by Metallica's standards) characterised by thrash metal backing tracks provided by Metallica and the ramblings of a crazy old man (RIP Lou Reed). Lyrically, the record is just poetic nonsense reminiscent of The Velvet Underground but withoutLike most experimental metal albums, Lulu take time for listeners to appreciate in fact a lot of time is needed. This is an overly long album (even by Metallica's standards) characterised by thrash metal backing tracks provided by Metallica and the ramblings of a crazy old man (RIP Lou Reed). Lyrically, the record is just poetic nonsense reminiscent of The Velvet Underground but without the humour or insight thank goodness there's very little singing from Lou Reed in the 8 minute songs. Musically, Metallica have performed some of their best compositions in years.
    Like I said at the beginning, this is a record that takes time; the songs are generally around 7 or 8 minutes (one even being 20 minutes!) and, well, this isn't exactly an "easy" listen and by that I mean you need to listen to the WHOLE record to appreciate this, otherwise the songs are just a joke and an embarrassment for both performers (well not Reed, who remembers Metal Machine Music 1975?) with rather peculiar lyrics and just plain odd musicality.
    People quite rightly hate this album, but its not the worst album ever, (it is Metallica's worst though, but its not their fault) in fact Lulu is something of an avant-garde masterpiece its a piece of work that people for years will find controversial. As a Lou Reed album, its a long haul; as a Metallica album, its an intriguing, brave piece of work that is their best musically performed album in years.
    NOTE: the "best" songs are mostly those found on Disc 2 (including the rather impressive, grand closer Junior Dad) whilst Disc 1 has only one noteworthy song opener Brandenburg Gate.
    Expand
  6. Nov 7, 2017
    5
    It's not the worst thing ever stuffed into my ears, to Metallica's credit they do have some decent riffs and song progressions here and there. However, the album's content is rather weak and unsatisfactory for a 95-minute running time, and the vocals of Lou Reed and James Hetfield mash terribly here. While not impressed with the lyrical structure of the album, the content is quite deep andIt's not the worst thing ever stuffed into my ears, to Metallica's credit they do have some decent riffs and song progressions here and there. However, the album's content is rather weak and unsatisfactory for a 95-minute running time, and the vocals of Lou Reed and James Hetfield mash terribly here. While not impressed with the lyrical structure of the album, the content is quite deep and I can appreciate Reed's effort even if it rarely mixes decently into the mix. There are some glistens of gold in the album, like in "Iced Honey" and "Junior Dad", but they are rare to find and don't hold up to much of anything these artists made in the past.

    I am very open to band experimentation and as such I could admire the different things these artists did, but I feel that the execution of Lulu was, as a whole, poor. These artists rarely work perfectly in unison together and the songs drag on for way too long, and the whole thing feels sloppy and at points unfinished as a result. It at times feels like I'm listening to a really bad demo tape. Lou Reed's poetry isn't really for everyone and it hardly works in the mix of Lulu if at all, and James Hetfield's backing vocals don't really elevate my respects for either singer. Really, the whole album just sounds like an experimentation that we were never meant to actually hear.

    This is a far cry from Metallica's best or Lou Reed's best, but I don't believe that it's a 100% terrible record. Looking past the collaboration choice and the presented flaws of the album, Metallica does occasionally throw out music that is pleasant and even entertaining on the ears, and the lyrics can get quite introspective and agreeable at times, but all the good stuff is rather rare and it doesn't come by often enough to really compensate for the worse parts of this record. It's a shame really because I thought that a project like Lulu had a lot of unrealized potential.

    Is Lulu completely awful? No, but unless you're really into Lou Reed's works you have little reason to visit the album. Unless the Metallica fan in question is really open to experimentation, they shouldn't take a gander at this thing.
    Expand
  7. 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 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 anThe 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. Expand
  8. Nov 6, 2011
    4
    Honestly, it's not as horrible as people make it out to be. I feel like the user score has been artificially deflated thanks to the scores of disappointed Metallica/Lou Reed fans. Don't get me wrong, it's an aggressively taxing listen, but if you make an effort to pay attention to the story, and give the album a fair chance, you'll find it does have some redeeming qualities. That said,Honestly, it's not as horrible as people make it out to be. I feel like the user score has been artificially deflated thanks to the scores of disappointed Metallica/Lou Reed fans. Don't get me wrong, it's an aggressively taxing listen, but if you make an effort to pay attention to the story, and give the album a fair chance, you'll find it does have some redeeming qualities. That said, there is a major disjunction between Lou's vocals and Metallica's instrumentals, that could have been repaired with some studio workshopping. This album was made quickly and it shows. Expand
  9. Nov 6, 2011
    4
    After listening to this album, I have NO respect for Lou Reed anymore. He has ruined Metallica and what they are known for. His voice is so annoying and sounds awful... and it's put to crazy, loud guitars. It doesn't go. If Lou thinks that this is the best thing he's ever done, then he must have has a crappy career. And Metallica, please forget you ever did this and go back to DeathAfter listening to this album, I have NO respect for Lou Reed anymore. He has ruined Metallica and what they are known for. His voice is so annoying and sounds awful... and it's put to crazy, loud guitars. It doesn't go. If Lou thinks that this is the best thing he's ever done, then he must have has a crappy career. And Metallica, please forget you ever did this and go back to Death Magnetic. At least this wasn't as bad as St. Anger. Expand
  10. Nov 16, 2011
    4
    An album that just sounds like nobody knows what's going on. Simple as that. Lou Reed sounds like he's in a different country, and Metallica, well, kinda saves the album, but like always, Lars can't really keep steady time. This is Metallica's worst album, but not Lou Reed's. (see Metal Machine Music)
  11. Jan 3, 2012
    4
    It has the balls to not be conventional, and it has some decent songs where the two seemingly opposite Lou and Metallica find a common ground. Not a great album but far from the utter failure most people claim it is. The production of the record, IMO, if better could have improved the final result of the mixed styles.
Metascore
45

Mixed or average reviews - based on 31 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 31
  2. Negative: 13 out of 31
  1. Mojo
    Jan 10, 2012
    80
    The shock in this collaboration is that it sounds savagely natural. [Dec. 2011, p.93]
  2. 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]
  3. The Wire
    Dec 8, 2011
    80
    Metallica's unrelenting sledgehammer style works as the perfect complement to Reed's vision of compassionless love, with monolithic chords deployed with almost surgical precision wile he dissects relationships w of masochism and power. [Dec 2011, p.63]