Lulu

Lulu Image
Metascore
45

Mixed or average reviews - based on 31 Critics What's this?

User Score
2.1

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 181 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Summary: Lou Reed and Metallica collaborated on this two-disc set of music based on Frank Wedekind's LuLu plays.
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 31
  2. Negative: 13 out of 31
  1. Jan 10, 2012
    80
    The shock in this collaboration is that it sounds savagely natural. [Dec. 2011, p.93]
  2. Oct 31, 2011
    80
    Much advance word of Lou Reed and Metallica's excursion has been one of bewilderment and dismissal. It may well be, though, that in the fullness of time this is an album that is given the praise it deserves.
  3. 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]
  4. 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.
  5. The whole thing comes off as either an expensive major label joke or nigh-impenetrable high art concept. Maybe both.
  6. Nov 1, 2011
    25
    An utter wreck that curiously, miraculously, might have been great.
  7. 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.

See all 31 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 62
  2. Negative: 43 out of 62
  1. Nov 8, 2011
    10
    Metallica and Lou Reed have created in this album a complete masterpiece destined to become a cult album. I'm not saying this is the bestMetallica and Lou Reed have created in this album a complete masterpiece destined to become a cult album. I'm not saying this is the best album ever, but sure one of the greatest CDs in the last 5 years. The main reason is because they have created something new mixing their own styles in a conceptual way. Lulu is not only an album, it's something more and it's hard to explain it. Is when yo have listened all the CD, read its lyrics and watched all the art-work when you realize it's something special. Talking about Lulu's music, I think is awesome, specially Metallica's work, that explores new kinds of music with a great sensibility. It's true that in the beginning Lou's voice can seem strange in that melodies, but listening to it you see that this is a part of his poetry, of the sense of Lulu.
    Finally I want to say that the main problem for me is that this album should have been far away from mainstream and be a little work, but nothing that is done by Metallica nowadays will go unnoticed for their main audience, and specially his "purists" and detractors fans. But no matter what they say. Lulu is a GREAT album.
    Expand
  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. Expand
  3. Nov 1, 2011
    1
    I gave this rating a star because Metallica does have some good riffs in here, some of them with a bit of variety/progression could make goodI gave this rating a star because Metallica does have some good riffs in here, some of them with a bit of variety/progression could make good Metallica songs. The issue here is Lou Reed ruining any potential here. I like a lot of Lou Reed solo work (Blue Mask, Transformer, Coney Island Baby) but his lyrics here are awful, to the point that they distract from any musical flow. Worse yet, his "singing" has no consistent pattern, melody, nothing of redeeming value. This was a struggle to get through, a total vanity project for Reed, maybe wanting to put out a metal machine music for the new decade. It's funny, because Reed has now been responsible for some of the best works of rock/pop music with Velvet Underground, and now the worst as well. Metallica does not help matters here, the music is too repetitive to be enjoyable. If they could work with a stronger producer like Danger Mouse or Rick Rubin, they could do something interesting again. Ever since Bob Rock reared his ugly head into their careers, they've gone downhill. Expand
  4. Jan 19, 2015
    0
    What happened? Honestly, I thought at first I was listening to an old man talking throughout the whole album instead of actually singing. ButWhat happened? Honestly, I thought at first I was listening to an old man talking throughout the whole album instead of actually singing. But actually, I wasn't dreaming. Oh well... Expand
  5. Nov 7, 2014
    0
    Metlicca is crap now...Lars and Kirk horrible at live..now this album..never again wanna hear their music.

    Terrible lyrics, horrible
    Metlicca is crap now...Lars and Kirk horrible at live..now this album..never again wanna hear their music.

    Terrible lyrics, horrible vocals, flat melodies, uninspired riffs, just about every misfire in the book is present on Lulu. Lars also play teribad here.! RIP Meallica
    Expand
  6. Nov 1, 2011
    0
    to give it a 0 is to say it hasn't any artistic merit, which it has. still, it hasn't got enough to score a 1. listen to it as a Metallicato give it a 0 is to say it hasn't any artistic merit, which it has. still, it hasn't got enough to score a 1. listen to it as a Metallica fan, a Reed fan, or not a fan at all, everything in this album sucks the same Collapse

See all 62 User Reviews