Lars Ulrich ruins the whole record tho...damn he sucks..

The NME quite like it.

http://www.nme.com/reviews/lou-reed/12416

The NME being the most valid of music journalism of course.

I'm quite enjoying the album.

It's nice to see two relics of the industry try something different even if the results aren't completely great. Some parts work really well and others don't work at all but it doesn't deserve the insane bad hype and criticism it's been receiving.

the music is way too predictable in a "metal" way and thats what you get from Metallica nowadays (mediocre neo-thrash but slowed down) same goes for most of Reed's material with whatever pretentious bullshit he's got going on... i' m sure they would've come up with something much more interesting if Metallica tried something this adventurous in their prime, say circa 1986, but this isn't... its 2011 and it seems both Metallica and Lou Reed are grasping at straws to make themselves "relevant" once again, sorry this is a failure, nice try (or is it?) maybe Reed should work with SUNN O))) and Metallica should work with Wolf Eyes (fat chance on the latter).

weird comparison, its like comparing apples and oranges.

I'm not comparing their records in terms of what they sound like. I know what they sound like. I was simply pointing out that overall this particular record is bolder and more daring than anything Animal Collective - the first ''cool'' band that popped up into mind - have ever done. In that respect I don't understand why it's getting slated so much. Some of the lyrics are brilliant. In a couple of songs I find them even brutally sad. As you may already know, there aren't that many great lyricists in rock music at the moment.

"Cheat on Me" and other songs are fucking great, I don't understand how people could say they're bad.

Oh lord.

It's not as bad as I thought it would be from what I've heard.

For some reason I'm quite glad you like it D-dawg.

I've listened to it a few times now, and I think it's brilliant. I might try and write something more extensive about this soon, but... it's a great record. It's kind of funny that the trailer song is probably the weakest song on the album. Perverse promo, I'd say. Reed's on incredible form, lyrically. It probably helps that Metallica just sound equally as generic and boring as they always have to me - but contraposing that with Reed's most obtuse lyrics for a while is a great idea. It definitely feels like Lou Reed backed by Metallica, rather than a full collaboration, and that's a great thing. And I think Reed's bringing out some of his a-game playing as well.

It's a perverse record, but I don't quite think it's over-indulgently so. So yeah. That's some of what I think.

ugh, you people and your compliments for the album are going to make me actually listen than more than just the view....

What the fuck...

So if the lyrics are great, there is nothing wrong that the music is miserable?

I don't think the music's miserable, it's perverse. Which (drumroll) is appropriate for the music.

Rich coming from you. Read your own posts, matey.

I'd go as far to say that this record is the only thing Metallica has done that's worth listening to since maybe '...And Justice For All'. I would probably say the same for Reed except I actually haven't bothered with most of his post-70s output.

I haven´t heard the whole record, but what I´ve heard it sound to me miserable. Lyrics may be great, but the way Lou "sings" them is miserable. I also like some music that I consider perverse, but I don´t think this is perverse. But of course everybody have own opionions about what´s perverse.

It´s amazing, how there´s music enthusiastics that think they have only right opinion. I haven´t ever said my opinion is the only right one.

Well I think St. Anger and LULU differs like day and night (I think St. Anger is just great), but of course it´s a wrong opinion, because I don´t belong into SYG-cream.