Written by malaikat on 01.11.2011 at 12:14

Dude, I'm a literature professor and prose/poetry critic. I can write you an essay on the subject of crappines of this lyrics.

And I'm certanly not going to discuss "how the poetry works" on this thread. If you want to shed some light on the subject, start with Hugo Friedrich's "Structure of a modern poetry" (Die Struktur der modernen Lyrik), it adresses the problems of poem analysis you brought up.

But in short: you can make your own interpretation of ANYTHING. If poetry worked the way you imagine it, there would be no good or bad poets: everyone would be the same, because, hey you can just "make your own interpretation", meaning that there is no poetic abbility - whatever you write, no matter how bad it is, someone can see something in it and call it good. That's just subjective view on the poetry: "I like what I like, I see whatever I see".
That's the difference between the good and the bad poets, between Walt Whitman and some shmuck like Lou Reed, the ability to project his own imagionation into his reader's mind, and not just allow the reader to read what he wants to read.

If there is any meaning in the lyrics the beauty of poetry, as I understand it, is it's ability to convey meaning, not lock it away in some kind of cryptic diarrhoea.

Written by R'Vannith on 01.11.2011 at 12:42

Written by malaikat on 01.11.2011 at 12:14

Dude, I'm a literature professor and prose/poetry critic. I can write you an essay on the subject of crappines of this lyrics.

And I'm certanly not going to discuss "how the poetry works" on this thread. If you want to shed some light on the subject, start with Hugo Friedrich's "Structure of a modern poetry" (Die Struktur der modernen Lyrik), it adresses the problems of poem analysis you brought up.

But in short: you can make your own interpretation of ANYTHING. If poetry worked the way you imagine it, there would be no good or bad poets: everyone would be the same, because, hey you can just "make your own interpretation", meaning that there is no poetic abbility - whatever you write, no matter how bad it is, someone can see something in it and call it good. That's just subjective view on the poetry: "I like what I like, I see whatever I see".
That's the difference between the good and the bad poets, between Walt Whitman and some shmuck like Lou Reed, the ability to project his own imagionation into his reader's mind, and not just allow the reader to read what he wants to read.

If there is any meaning in the lyrics the beauty of poetry, as I understand it, is it's ability to convey meaning, not lock it away in some kind of cryptic diarrhoea.

I think that "cryptic diarrhoea" is fitting metaphor to this. And, incidentally, a metaphor that is ten times better than "I am table(t)".
And spot on on the "conveyed/locked meaning" statement, I quite like it actually.

Quote:
Dude, I'm a literature professor and prose/poetry critic. I can write you an essay on the subject of crappines of this lyrics.

And I'm certanly not going to discuss "how the poetry works" on this thread. If you want to shed some light on the subject, start with Hugo Friedrich's "Structure of a modern poetry" (Die Struktur der modernen Lyrik), it adresses the problems of poem analysis you brought up.

But in short: you can make your own interpretation of ANYTHING. If poetry worked the way you imagine it, there will be no good or bad poets: everyone would be the same, because, hey you can just "make your own interpretation", meaning that there is no poetic abbility - whatever you write, no matter how bad it is, someone can see something in it and call it good. That's just subjective view on the poetry: "I like what I like, I see whatever I see".
That's the difference between the good and the bad poets, between Walt Whitman and some shmuck like Lou Reed, the ability to project his own imagionation into his reader's mind, and not just allow the reader to read what he wants to read.

Well i am a chef, but i can't cook.i just learn everything in the menu and memorises the recipes.
I agree with you that you can make your own interpretation of anything, but if you are like me you can narrow it down to make a conclusion. And there is usualy not one line in lyrics. use the whole picture to understand. I read alot of lyrics/poems/whatever with metaphors that i didn't like. I don't see your problem, it's not like people always make totaly crazy interpretations of lyrics with metaphores, moast people can come to a conclusion that is close to what the lyricist wants to say.
It also sound like you are saying that the matter of taste and opinion doesn't count when it comes to lyrics. Is there no subjective views in poetry? if so, this has to be the only arena where that doesn't count.
What do you think of Bob Dylan as a lyricist? Take Mr. Tamourine man as an example. Is it about drugs?.. it could be.. religious? could be. Dylan never told what the lyrics realy are about, and he is considerd by many to be the greatest poet and lyricist there is.

Written by malaikat on 01.11.2011 at 12:07
This go on forever, but ok - we just have "too" opposing views on music and the genre specifics

Accepted. hehe

Written by R'Vannith on 01.11.2011 at 12:39
Those are not criteria of prog per-se, more like characteristics. In a very broad use of the term (that's how its used these days anyway) I'd agree that "Call Of Ktulu" can be considered as prog, as with bits and pieces of "...and Justice For All."

Well, if a song has "characteristics" of prog, how do you determine if those characteristics are enough for a song to be "true prog" or not? I guess it all comes down to individual interpretation. For example, I would say that "Call Of Ktulu" is prog, whilst "Holy Wars" by Megadeth is a song that contains elements of prog, but isn't full-blown prog.

As for Justice... there is progressive elements all over that album, though it is debateable whether the album (as a whole) can be called a "true" prog album.

Written by Angelic Storm on 01.11.2011 at 13:35

Written by malaikat on 01.11.2011 at 12:07
This go on forever, but ok - we just have "too" opposing views on music and the genre specifics

Accepted. hehe

Written by R'Vannith on 01.11.2011 at 12:39
Those are not criteria of prog per-se, more like characteristics. In a very broad use of the term (that's how its used these days anyway) I'd agree that "Call Of Ktulu" can be considered as prog, as with bits and pieces of "...and Justice For All."

Well, if a song has "characteristics" of prog, how do you determine if those characteristics are enough for a song to be "true prog" or not? I guess it all comes down to individual interpretation. For example, I would say that "Call Of Ktulu" is prog, whilst "Holy Wars" by Megadeth is a song that contains elements of prog, but isn't full-blown prog.

As for Justice... there is progressive elements all over that album, though it is debateable whether the album (as a whole) can be called a "true" prog album.

Very true, discerning what is prog and what is not prog into two neat categories is not an easy task, as it is placing music somewhere on a 'progyness' scale. If you spend a lot of time listening to music with the label of prog you develop a sense of what is closer to what you understand the key elements of that genre are. In that way it's classification is dependent upon personal interpretation. Prog is in every sense of the word a vague label.

Hurray for the worst album in the history of metal!... apparently.

Written by malaikat on 01.11.2011 at 10:39

Imho the vast majority of mainstreem media will give this monstrosity high rates.

This is the review the swedish Metro newspaper gave it a few days ago, one of my favorite reviews from the media I've read in a while:

Quote:
Metallica has finally disappeared into their own assholes for ever. The band moves over the earth like a giant ass, Loe Reed it's rider. The nefarious combo farts on humanity's face - Open the ventilation!
They have created an absurd mockery of Rock whose nearest reference is Trey Parker / Matt Stone. The South-Park duo could never write such a brutal parody though. The worthlessness is too unthinkable, the poetry too pathetic, the music too non-existant. This is just disgusting noise created by superstars whose core consists of Chernobyl.
All the ratings above the lowest level are a lie. Metallica/Reed kick the bottom out of the barrel. All fall head over heels.

Best song: Nice joke...

Quote:
Loe Reed it's ridder

Obviously proof-reading wasn't important in that review.

Written by Guest on 01.11.2011 at 17:32

Quote:
Loe Reed it's ridder

Obviously proof-reading wasn't important in that review.

Hhahahahahah nah, that's my fault. The review was in swedish.

Written by X-Ray Rod on 01.11.2011 at 17:36


Hhahahahahah nah, that's my fault. The review was in swedish.

Oh sorry

Written by Guest on 01.11.2011 at 17:37

Written by X-Ray Rod on 01.11.2011 at 17:36


Hhahahahahah nah, that's my fault. The review was in swedish.

Oh sorry

Tbh with you I still don't quite get the mistake. The review was making a metaphor of Metallica being a giant ass and reed riding it like a horse... Grammar mistake?o_o

Written by X-Ray Rod on 01.11.2011 at 17:42


Tbh with you I still don't quite get the mistake. The review was making a metaphor of Metallica being a giant ass and reed riding it like a horse... Grammar mistake?o_o

Maybe it has a dual meaning? Ass as in your backside and the also the animal? Well I suppose that wouldn't work in Swedish as I doubt "ass" has both those meanings?

Written by Guest on 01.11.2011 at 17:51

Maybe it has a dual meaning? Ass as in your backside and the also the animal? Well I suppose that wouldn't work in Swedish as I doubt "ass" has both those meanings?

Hmmm I am sure that they wrote either "riding" or "ridder" not really sure about "ass" having two meanings in swedish though. It might be possible.

@Mr. doc, I think what JOOE means is that it's supposed to be 'its rider' and not 'it's ridder'

I AM THE TABLE was the high point of this album.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 01.11.2011 at 19:39

@Mr. doc, I think what JOOE means is that it's supposed to be 'its rider' and not 'it's ridder'

Ah, thanks for that. Fixed.

Written by vezzy on 01.11.2011 at 14:28
Hurray for the worst album in the history of music!

Fixed for accuracy.

Jesus 'fucking' Christ. Probably connecting my washmashine to an amplifier while beating a cat with an impact hammer and calling that visionary dubstep would result in miles better 'music' than this pile of bantha fodder. And to think about it that I didn't even listen through the entire thing, just bits and pieces, but no, I'd rather 'cut my legs and tits off' (the latter of which nonexistent of course) along with my testicles (and then juggle them around) than to actually waste so much time of my precious life. I am many things but not a masochist.

Written by Mattybu on 31.10.2011 at 01:59

No one will outdo the great Peter Criss!!!

Never mind it is now one day later and this album has surpassed even the immortal Peter Criss...

Written by X-Ray Rod on 01.11.2011 at 17:26


This is the review the swedish Metro newspaper gave it a few days ago, one of my favorite reviews from the media I've read in a while:

Quote:
Metallica has finally disappeared into their own assholes for ever. The band moves over the earth like a giant ass, Loe Reed it's rider. The nefarious combo farts on humanity's face - Open the ventilation!
They have created an absurd mockery of Rock whose nearest reference is Trey Parker / Matt Stone. The South-Park duo could never write such a brutal parody though. The worthlessness is too unthinkable, the poetry too pathetic, the music too non-existant. This is just disgusting noise created by superstars whose core consists of Chernobyl.
All the ratings above the lowest level are a lie. Metallica/Reed kick the bottom out of the barrel. All fall head over heels.

Best song: Nice joke...

Swedish Metro is my new favourite newspaper.
Btw they really used the words "fart" and "ass"?

Mr. Doctor inspired me to search for some reviews online. Here's one that's totaly objective and realistic:

Lulu certainly is for the open-minded. However, isn't all great art? There are questions that this album poses. It was made quickly and on a truly creative whim. These gentlemen weren't concerned with singles or any other posturing. They simply followed their hearts. That's refreshing in and of itself. In a day and age where movie studios are scared shitless to release anything but a sequel, adaptation or retread and labels won't put any money into anything that's not a surefire pop single, Lulu is emblematic that chances still need to be taken.

And yes, it was written for some hipster online magazine.

EDIT: some more BS reviews - just the conclusions:

1. "Junior Dad" is breathtaking; and (...) it's a perfect ending to the most extraordinary, passionate and just plain brilliant record either participant has made for a long while.

2. However, it's the sheer sense of unrestrained folly throughout that makes Lulu feel like an important album. Where contemporary rock, and Metallica themselves, are so minutely tailored for maximum commercial impact, here is a record which wilfully defies all that in the name of artistic purity.

3. Metallica have performed way beyond what many thought them capable; they improvise freely as Reed's musical bitch, while for him this marks his most outré offering since 'Metal Machine Music'. Pretentious? Oui. Self-important? Natch. Any cop? Pretty damn fine actually.


Oh the internet.

Written by malaikat on 01.11.2011 at 23:52
objective
Lulu certainly is for the open-minded. However, isn't all great art?

Not very objective there...

Written by malaikat on 01.11.2011 at 10:39

Written by Troy Killjoy on 01.11.2011 at 10:32

The Montreal Gazette gave this 5 stars.

Out of 5.

That's 100% for those of you who aren't good with math.

Imho the vast majority of mainstreem media will give this monstrosity high rates.

It'll be like:

(reviewer who usually listens to pop or some light rock, they're always like that)
"Wow, this is so heavy. I mean, they play guitars, and Reed is talking! This is so new and refreshing. Sure, it sounds lame to me, but who am I to question Metallica and Lou Reed? I don't want to come out as stupid, so I'll just give this 5stars/98%/4.9 whatever".


Anyways, sitting back, waiting for the RS review.

I agree with this a lot of the time but it appears to be recieving a bit of a hammering by critics ATM, The Wikipedia page (I know citing Wikipedia is not the most clever thing to do, But their are links to the reviews so it is legit) shows this. I still want to read the rolling stone review that compared this album to Master of Puppets mind, I could do with a laugh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lulu_(Lou_Reed_and_Metallica_album)

Written by Troy Killjoy on 01.11.2011 at 23:55

Written by malaikat on 01.11.2011 at 23:52
objective
Lulu certainly is for the open-minded. However, isn't all great art?

Not very objective there...

And quite insane, if I may add.

Written by @gent_-_orange on 02.11.2011 at 00:01



I agree with this a lot of the time but it appears to be recieving a bit of a hammering by critics ATM, The Wikipedia page (I know citing Wikipedia is not the most clever thing to do, But their are links to the reviews so it is legit) shows this. I still want to read the rolling stone review that compared this album to Master of Puppets mind, I could do with a laugh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lulu_(Lou_Reed_and_Metallica_album)

Yeah, I just checked a few places online, and I'm actually pleasantly surprised. Except for some random pretentious shitheads, everyone else is bashing the hell out of this. I guess there's still hope in mankind.

This album is pure shit.

"Some times I find it so emotional I have to get up and turn it off" I agree with this 100% percent.

ZOMG IF YOU TURN THE RATING SUMMARY UPSIDE DOWN YOU'LL GET A VERY APPRECIATED ALBUM

PREPARE YOURSELF 2012 IS COMING

Http://www.metalsucks.net/2011/10/31/loutallicas-lulu-the-metalsucks-reviews/

I never thought that I would say what I'm about to say about any album, ever. But... this is worse than nickelback...

Written by malaikat on 01.11.2011 at 23:45

Btw they really used the words "fart" and "ass"?

YES