DragonQuest3
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Posts
- 78
- Reaction score
- 0
Because it shows they don't care what critics think. I think in theory working with Lou Reed wasn't a bad idea but the execution was just terrible. In terms of consistency I rate many bands higher than Metallica (consistently solid albums that is) including Testament, Kreator, Overkill and I guess even Megadeth too.
I thought it was a bad idea to let the guy sing when all he could do is mumble. I dont kniw enough about Lou Reed honestly to judge his career but lets consider this isnt his first mega embarrassing two disc album. I love noise music and I like the idea of giving a middle finger to your producer and the critics but he couldve put some effort into making Metal Machine Music actually listenable. Instead of becoming a classic work of industrial noise it ended up a complete joke which is what Lulu is. Im all for avant garde type experimental music I mean I love Can, Amon Dull II, The Residents, Throbbing Gristle, Brian Eno, Magma, Pierre Schaeffer, and Stockhausen but clearly those guys knew how to execute such stuff better than Metallica and Lou Reed. I hear Lou Reeds art rock with the Velvet Underground is quite good though.
Still ignoring impact and looking at just the music how can Metallica be considered better than artists like Voivod who both transcended more succesfully into more experimental and artsy styles, and has an overall more consistent output? Again not trying to enforce my opinion this is just how I see it.