New Metallica Project

NobodyImportant

LeChuck

WilliamMunny


You know...I file Neil Young's Mirken Ball under Young...not Pearl Jam...

And I'd file this under Lou Reed...and therefore I kinda give Metallica a pass here...

That's what I've been saying all along. It's not a Metallica album and it never was.

While that is true, to the average consumer (at least here in America) that won't compute. Metallica is a household name, but Lou Reed is not. The stores I've been to that are stocking the Lulu CD have it filed under Metallica, and given the name association, that's how people will see it, even if it's not how Lou Reed & Metallica want it seen.

But you can't blame Metallica for that. In Germany, or at least in the stores I've been to it's filed under Lou Reed, by the way.

LeChuck

NobodyImportant

LeChuck

WilliamMunny


You know...I file Neil Young's Mirken Ball under Young...not Pearl Jam...

And I'd file this under Lou Reed...and therefore I kinda give Metallica a pass here...

That's what I've been saying all along. It's not a Metallica album and it never was.

While that is true, to the average consumer (at least here in America) that won't compute. Metallica is a household name, but Lou Reed is not. The stores I've been to that are stocking the Lulu CD have it filed under Metallica, and given the name association, that's how people will see it, even if it's not how Lou Reed & Metallica want it seen.

But you can't blame Metallica for that. In Germany, or at least in the stores I've been to it's filed under Lou Reed, by the way.

I didn't say to blame Metallica for that. It's just the way the cookie crumbles, at least here in America.

Ah, okay.
 
I guess my point is just that this thing would have been received completely differently if it wasn't Metallica who did it.

LeChuck


Ah, okay.

I guess my point is just that this thing would have been received completely differently if it wasn't Metallica who did it.

Of course it would have been received differently if Metallica weren't involved. Here in America it would have sold far less with just Lou Reed's name on it, and nobody would be blasting Metallica for doing something far worse than St Anger. ;)

DTman2112


So it's ALMOST beyond the point where it's no longer subjective - it's pretty much factual that this album is shit.

Yet, you mean to tell me that all members of Metallica, prior to the albums release, were all convinced that this album was a sonic masterpiece, and they were truly proud of their accomplishment?



I bet at least 1 or 2 guys were like "...so we're really gonna go through with this?"

A performer's perspective tends to be different from a listener's perspective. It probably seemed like a good idea beforehand, and after investing themselves extensively in the project, they likely have personal attachments to it that cause them to view it from an angle that could make them proud of what they've done. To the vast majority of us listeners it sounds like pure shit, but we don't have any connection to the writing and recording process.
 
That's not to say that there may not have been a couple of them who aren't happy with it. I haven't heard each one express their take on it (and even if they did comment, their personal investment could prevent them from being totally open about what they think of it). However, the point is that it's entirely possible that all of them think it's really good, even though the vast, VAST majority (nearly unanimous) of the rest of us find it to be pure garbage.

LeChuck


Ah, okay.

I guess my point is just that this thing would have been received completely differently if it wasn't Metallica who did it.

  the same thing could be said for load, reload, and st. anger.

ERT776463825

LeChuck


Ah, okay.

I guess my point is just that this thing would have been received completely differently if it wasn't Metallica who did it.

the same thing could be said for load, reload, and st. anger.

Of course.
 
Actually, by now it's so cool to hate on Metallica that they could come up with another Master of Puppets and people would still bash them.

I don't think it matters whether it was Metallica on the label or not. Fact is, one way or another, most people would still consider this a bad album.
 
And that's coming from someone who adores the shit out of Load, Reload and (to a slightly lesser degree) Death Magnetic.

Joe O


I don't think it matters whether it was Metallica on the label or not. Fact is, one way or another, most people would still consider this a bad album.

I agree with that, although it would not have gotten the same exposure (at least here in America) without "Metallica" being on the label, and therefore it wouldn't have been a big deal that it sucks royally.

Joe O


I don't think it matters whether it was Metallica on the label or not. Fact is, one way or another, most people would still consider this a bad album.

Yeah. But no.
You know, there are more people in this world that would hate, let's say, Opeth, than people who would love it. The ratio of people loving/hating something is in no way an indication of quality of anything. There are way more people who love Brokencyde than people who love King Crimson.
Once again, I think Lulu is a brilliant album. Inside it's own genre, it's probably as good as it gets. But people are going to listen to it thinking they will hear Master of Puppets. Or tradicional rock n' roll, or whatever, but when they face something truly different, few people actually stick around to try to understand what the music it's about.
Bass Communion is a ambient/drone/noise project by Steven Wilson, and inside the drone commuinity, his album are highly, highly regarded as masterpieces. Now, if Steven took one of these albums and released as a Porcupine Tree album, what do you think it would happen? People would try to listen, search for tradicional prog/metal elements and be disappointed. So yeah, the label does matter.
I tried to keep all of my examples inside the prog genre so everybody in the forum can get it but the concept obviously expands to every type of music.

I actually really like it, and I've never really cared for Lou Reed/Velvet Underground.  This was a very unique listening experience to me.   The bizarre poetry and weird arythmic off-tune speak/singing is just so different than what I usually listen to that I found it just very compelling, very interesting.  It evoked very different emotions than what I normally feel from music.  Like a weird sort of confusion.  It doesn't "suck"  It's not "utter complete garbage"  It's just weird. 

Grivu

Joe O


I don't think it matters whether it was Metallica on the label or not. Fact is, one way or another, most people would still consider this a bad album.

Yeah. But no.
You know, there are more people in this world that would hate, let's say, Opeth, than people who would love it. The ratio of people loving/hating something is in no way an indication of quality of anything. There are way more people who love Brokencyde than people who love King Crimson.
Once again, I think Lulu is a brilliant album. Inside it's own genre, it's probably as good as it gets. But people are going to listen to it thinking they will hear Master of Puppets. Or tradicional rock n' roll, or whatever, but when they face something truly different, few people actually stick around to try to understand what the music it's about.
Bass Communion is a ambient/drone/noise project by Steven Wilson, and inside the drone commuinity, his album are highly, highly regarded as masterpieces. Now, if Steven took one of these albums and released as a Porcupine Tree album, what do you think it would happen? People would try to listen, search for tradicional prog/metal elements and be disappointed. So yeah, the label does matter.
I tried to keep all of my examples inside the prog genre so everybody in the forum can get it but the concept obviously expands to every type of music.

Exactly. You described my point better than I could, so thank you for that.

Grivu

Joe O


I don't think it matters whether it was Metallica on the label or not. Fact is, one way or another, most people would still consider this a bad album.

 But people are going to listen to it thinking they will hear Master of Puppets. Or tradicional rock n' roll, or whatever, but when they face something truly different, few people actually stick around to try to understand what the music it's about.

I respected your post until you made this point. No, that is not always true, or even usually the case. Sure some people probably do, but most do not think that way. I guarantee you quite a lot of people tried to understand it. And hated it. I think myself a pretty astute listener. I have CD's ranging from metal, to jazz, to classical to folk, to bluegrass, to ambient, etc. etc. To say that I did not like it just because it was "truly different" is arrogant and condescending. I did not like it because I thought it was bad music. Period.

portnoy311

I guarantee you quite a lot of people tried to understand it. And hated it. I think myself a pretty astute listener. I have CD's ranging from metal, to jazz, to classical to folk, to bluegrass, to ambient, etc. etc. To say that I did not like it just because it was "truly different" is arrogant and condescending. I did not like it because I thought it was bad music. Period.

Ditto. I also have a wide range of musical interests, and I was not the least but turned off by Lulu being different. I just thought that the end result was horrible.

portnoy311

Grivu

Joe O


I don't think it matters whether it was Metallica on the label or not. Fact is, one way or another, most people would still consider this a bad album.

But people are going to listen to it thinking they will hear Master of Puppets. Or tradicional rock n' roll, or whatever, but when they face something truly different, few people actually stick around to try to understand what the music it's about.

I respected your post until you made this point. No, that is not always true, or even usually the case. Sure some people probably do, but most do not think that way. I guarantee you quite a lot of people tried to understand it. And hated it. I think myself a pretty astute listener. I have CD's ranging from metal, to jazz, to classical to folk, to bluegrass, to ambient, etc. etc. To say that I did not like it just because it was "truly different" is arrogant and condescending. I did not like it because I thought it was bad music. Period.

I absolutely understand your point (...by the way, you don't respect my post once I post something you disagree...? ok), and you're right, some people really do try to understand what the musicians are trying to do or which direction they are going, get it, and don't like it. I didn't say YOU didn't like it because it's different, please don't put words in my mouth. I don't care how many genres you listen to.
My point is there is no bad music. Lulu is not bad music. Bass Communion is not bad music. friggin' Justin Bieber is not bad music. It's just not your thing.

I do not respect condescension, no. 
 
Although it is true that if you do truly enjoy it, no one should be able to tell you otherwise, the corollary is also true - you should not tell anyone (whether it be me or the faceless "most people") why they do not. 
 
If you have to use the "there is no bad music" defense and use the Biebs as an example- rather than defend the merits of the actual music - I think you already realize you're fighting a losing battle. 

portnoy311

I do not respect condescension, no. 

Once again, my post wasn't at any point directed to you or anyone. Please stop making this a personal matter, because it's not, at all.

portnoy311

Although it is true that if you do truly enjoy it, no one should be able to tell you otherwise, the corollary is also true - you should not tell anyone (whether it be me or the faceless "most people") why they do not. 

I'm not telling anyone why they don't enjoy it. I'm saying that if you don't like something, that doesn't mean it's bad, and if you like something, it doesn't mean it's good. My point is, most people tend to have a ''safe spot'' on music, and try not to good to far from that(there is a recent thread about this somewhere on the forum). Once a musician gets out of that safe zone, a lot of people just won't pay enough attention to it and easily dismiss it.
Metallica and Lou Reed put a lot of work into the project. When people come and just say that such a subjective thing(music) is bad, they ignore completely that at some point, for someone, those pieces of music made all of the sense in the world. I'm not trying to lecture people into expressing their opinions in a respectful manner, because frankly that IS a lost cause, but I just think that sometimes people have to step back and put themselves in another position. Sometimes for an artist, hearing a ''it's not my thing'' as opposed to ''this is terrible'' makes all of the difference in the world.

portnoy311

If you have to use the "there is no bad music" defense and use the Biebs as an example- rather than defend the merits of the actual music - I think you already realize you're fighting a losing battle.

I have no idea what you meant by that but it's probably because of my not-so-good english. I guess my answer would be that I use Biebs as example because he is a popular target for music hate.

I truly enjoy the album. I know I'm a huge minority, but something about it... I just love it.

I just can't get over the fact that Lou Reed is pretending to be a 19 year old girl that's being raped for the entire duration of the record. 
 
While I can see why people would like this record, I just don't. I think I could like a record like this, just not with these two artists (I never really liked Metallica and Lou Reed hasn't been relevant since The Velvet Underground). 
 
All I can say is: Enjoy it if it's your thing, shut up if it's not.

Still haven't heard it.  The 30 sec sample I heard months back was enough for me to realize I should never listen to this album, haha.

portnoy311


If you have to use the "there is no bad music" defense and use the Biebs as an example- rather than defend the merits of the actual music - I think you already realize you're fighting a losing battle. 

I disagree with this strongly.  I happen to agree with Grivu in the sense that it isn't up to us to say what is "good" or "bad" in music, but only what we like or don't, and why.  So your choice above is a false one, in that we can debate the merits - or what we see as the merits - of music all day long, but it won't change that we can't decide what is "good" or "bad" (unless, as is often the case, we are mis-defining "good" as in "we like it" and "bad" as in "we don't".)  I personally think only the artists can say whether something is "good" or "bad":  how close did the work come to the original vision (or at least the vision the artist was willing to live with). 
 
I often use Bieber in this context, because a) it is interesting that many of the people ready to dismiss him have heard at most one or two songs, and b) often dismiss him for the wrong reasons.  I'm not a fan at all, and I have other problems with him (I question the sanity of children in an adult business, let's leave it at that) but I also see the joy of music that my kid is learning from... Justin Bieber.  And while I hope she has no boundaries when it comes to music as she matures, the joy she gets from Justin Bieber is in my eyes no less (or no less valid) than the joy I get from Mike's music.  So who are we to say "Bieber sucks"?