Talk:Lulu (Lou Reed and Metallica album)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Metal Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Single[edit]

it's NOT a single! AAAAHRRGGH! just because a track is posted on youtube it's not a single. A physical release is needed for a song to be a single!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.115.107.11 (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of them newfangled digital download singles Racklever (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is off-topic a little, but I agree. The definition of "single" seems to be pretty loose for Metallica, and their category of singles is fairly inflated. How many guys can say they own a copy of Don't Tread On Me, Judas Kiss, Cyanide, or anything at all on the official list from before "...And Justice" except for Whiplash, Jump In The Fire, or Creeping Death ? Is it possible for someone to address this?

Reed's response to criticism[edit]

Shouldn't the quote that says it's for "literate people" say it's for "deaf people"? Because really, only they are safe from the horror of this album. 71.225.227.201 (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you actually proved Lou Reed's point.--WTF (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry King[edit]

Someone please add that Kerry King does the vocals for Mistress Dread --Kipwingersdaddy (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for this information? Fezmar9 (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from his brief edit history, I'm pretty sure this is a joke.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No way dude, it's legit. --Kipwingersdaddy (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimacy on Wikipedia is determined by a bit of information's ability to be backed up by third-party, published authoritative sources. If you can provide a source such as this, it can be added to the article. If not, then please refrain from wasting our time with rumors and/or hoaxes. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Length[edit]

Right length is 87:04, not 85:44. Don't treat track length as decimal fraction. Look at this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.65.156.168 (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Fezmar9 (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

do you realize this is longer than a standard cd? I smell trouble... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.125.212 (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe it is going to be a double-cd?--80.136.105.1 (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken Word[edit]

As visible from the first single "The View", the album will contain some spoken word elements, at least to a certain degree

Track listing template[edit]

With these edits[1][2][3] I have removed the {{Track listing}} template from this article. The user 124.168.213.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) left the following comment on my talk page expressing his concerns about my actions. I thought I'd respond to his comment here rather than my talk page so that other editors of this article could see my reasoning. He says:

"the track listing template doesn't make sense in this situation"????? What??? A track list template makes sense where there is any track listing. It's a lot tider and offers a lot more information than manually added information. What do you plan to do when the album is release and it has different people writing the music and lyrics? And has notes for different tracks eg featuring John Smith or something? Without a template you will just make a mess of the page with notes all over the place. The point of a template is to make information tidy and readable.

According to WP:ALBUM#Track listing, the track listing should be formatted into a numbered list, except for more complicated situations. A more complicated situation might include writing credits for individual songs, use of the additional or note fields, or use of the collapsible function. None of these apply to this article, thus the template is pointless here. I have additional reasons listed here about how the track listing template, when used innapropriately, can fail Wikipedia's policy on accessibility. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

Isn't it a bit early for a reception? It is only based on a 30 sec. preview.--80.133.169.195 (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe worth adding that it's Metacritic's 32nd worst album ever?

Other Instruments[edit]

Does anybody know who's playing violin on the album? There's certainly some violin... I guess it's Reed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigsoft (talk • contribs) 12:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding reviews[edit]

The section is for "professional reviews", rinky dink little websites are not professional reviews, and I believe these reviews should be limited to publications or websites that have a Wiki page...it also brings unfounded negative criticsm from many people on these websites that are not qualified to review music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.114.180 (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that only professional reviews should be included, positive or negative. Racklever (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing The Quietus review. It is a valid source, and, to satisfy the IP who removed it, it has a wikipage.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse Board is also a valid source of criticism and the review has been unfairly removed from this page. See Everett True — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about Pitchfork? "Lulu" was rated 1.0/10 today. I think this is a source worth citing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.26.130.189 (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, there are currently twenty reviews listed on the page - this is twice as many as necessary. The fact is that high profile releases are always going to receive huge attention, and merely being notable is NOT enough to guarantee their inclusion. The list should be reduced to the ten MOST notable reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardHoudini (talk • contribs) 11:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncut review[edit]

How was this review assigned a 4/5? I don't see any star rating on the page used for the reference - am I missing something? 138.199.78.249 (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The matter will be looked into--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is in Uncut's magazine, I originally linked it to the magazine article...don't know who changed that...I'll change it back. 99.229.114.180 (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You linked it to a non-existent page it appears. It was perfectly fine before with the old link and a "positive" rating--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Page Protection[edit]

Too much crap and vandalism going on this page. Requesting semi protection to lock out IPs and non-autoconfirmed users until the article can be cleaned up.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Reed and Metallica own page?[edit]

Should Lou and Metallica have their own page at this point? Many one-off collaborations do...and Lou is even talking about a second album, which is doubtful due to critical reception, but anyway...99.229.114.180 (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would really depend on the amount of information specifically related to the history of the collaboration. If it would be a hinderence for readers to flip back and fourth between Metallica's page and Lou Reed's page, then maybe. Until then, all information should be collected on this article. In the event that the group releases a second album, maybe. It's a novel suggestion, but probably too early to take any immediate action. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why the hell do Alice Mudgarden have their own page when they did one song and used the name as a joke? lol 99.229.114.180 (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell knows, but anything important about Lou Reed & Metallica can either go on this page, or on the artists' respective pages. Unless they actually do make a second record (I can't really see why either party would want to), there really is no reason for it.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who removed all the reviews?[edit]

There were many more reviews than are currently present and all from credible sources...why were they removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.114.180 (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every single review, even if we limit it to "credible sources", isn't necessary. It makes for bad reading to fill the page with an exhastive synopsis of every single review ever done by a "credible source". A representative sampling of such reviews seems much wiser, as it keeps the review section in balance with the size of the rest of the article. Editorial decisions for the sake of having a well constructed article need to be made from time to time, and that sometimes means we need to cut some text. At some point, additional reviews stop becoming useful and just become excessive. --Jayron32 03:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of Fame Pic?[edit]

The pic of the Hall of Fame building should be removed. The anniversary performance was not held at the Hall itself, but in New York. I think it was at MSG probably. Also, even if they did perform there, a picture of the venue is pretty much irrelevant. 108.5.129.193 (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done – Seems logical to me. Fezmar9 (talk) 09:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from , 24 November 2011[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This was a devel song for mthe underworld 72.242.232.134 (talk) 08:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Please explain what edit you are requesting, providing reliable sources. Zidanie5 (talk) 11:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aronofsky[edit]

"Iced Honey" is not receiving a video directed by Aronofsky, "The View" is and it has already been released... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.114.180 (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thrash Metal added to genre[edit]

Much of the album features thrash...just listen to Mistress Dread. Pumping Blood is another example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.114.180 (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu received 9th place on The Wire Magazine's top 50 albums of 2011[edit]

I think it could be interesting to add this to the reception part, since it heavily contrasts with the bulk of reviews published and cited in the article. The reason I'm asking it here first, is because I can't find any info about its ranking, outside of the list itself and a post in defense of Lulu's placement on The Wire's blog, and since I haven't read the article about the collaboration either, I can't justify to include it myself. So I'm hoping someone here does have more information about The Wire's view on the album. Teleevisie (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The View (song) has been tagged for notability since 2017. It just so happens that the Singles section of this article is solely dedicated to The View, as it's the album's only single. This section, significantly more extensive than the song article, shows two things: 1. the song is probably notable, based on the coverage it has received, but 2. all relevant information can perfectly be contained in the album article, as it already is, and there's probably not enough material for a standalone article. So I propose to just make The View redirect here. Lennart97 (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]