If Loud Reed was attempting to make one the worst things ever

I mean who wants to listen to over an hour of just feedback?

Album Rating: 1.0

Why not?

Why not?

I will agree that it's an important album.

"John Lennon being a terrible father/husband didn't stop people from liking the Beatles for their music itself,"

That's irrelevant. John Lennon didn't beat Yoko and Cynthia to inspire his music, he beat them because he was an abusive husband. Lou Reed however was actively going out of his way to make what he felt was utter shit for the purpose of being utter shit because he felt it was a good way to stick it to the record label. I'm not talking about all of an artist's actions, just their intentions when making music which whether you like it or not influences albums heavily.

right, but you're still concerning yourself based on what's behind the scenes rather than what's actually entering your ears (which in this case, sounds terrible to you).

and john lennon being a bad person (allegedly) alters the way you could perceive his lyrics. but, if you separate the art from the artist, then it doesn't matter

Album Rating: 3.5

Intention does matter to me, and I think it's a point to consider for sure but it's not nearly as important as "do I like/enjoy this?"

Yes, it does sound terrible, which is why I applaud Mr. Reed for giving us the album he meant to make.

Which is why I initially said people should 1 this out of respect to him. By not 1ing this, you're basically saying "Lou Reed fucked up and accidentally made this album decent/good." Which is a bizarre statement, but in this case it works.

yeah, you can interpret a piece of music a lot easier bearing in mind what was behind it, but it shouldn't dictate whether or not it's good in your eyes. (kinda like interviewing an artist before listening to their album)

I agree there. I'm not saying people shouldn't like this, I'm saying people who like this are ironically insulting Lou Reed.

Album Rating: 1.0

Intent provides soul

intent can certainly provide something. i mean, every artist has something in mind. i'm not saying intent is stupid, I just don't think it's a critical factor when I'm judging music. something to consider (as Cyg noted), but not the be-all-end-all. we know this stuff about lou reed because his biography is detailed, but a lot of music I listen to comes from people i've never heard of before, and therefore know nothing of their intent. so, I'm forced to judge it based on what I hear, and make my own meanings.

if we say, hypothetically, lou reed intended to create the first noise/industrial album, something unrelenting and punishing, we could look back and say "nicely done Lou! you certainly achieved that! A+". but, the music itself wouldn't necessarily be any different, just the background info. so, in my mind, intent isn't a fair thing to judge music on. plenty of great art has been made unintentionally, just as much as shit art has been made with good intentions

See but Metal Machine Music isn't like 99.99% of albums, which are assumed to be made for the listener's enjoyment. This was made for the listener's displeasure.

So when you say an album rules for an artist who intended for it to rule, it's a compliment, but if you say it sucks it's an insult obviously. But in this rare case that an album sucks for an artist who intended for it to suck, it's a compliment, but by saying it rules it's the insult.

Without intent the listener might think they're insulting Lou Reed by saying it sucks, when they're actually complimenting him.

Nothing like popping a handful of seroquel and listening to this album agreed.

@Ars - I'm not sure how you could be such an advocate for experimental music, but so hesitant to appreciate music that actually experimented and broke new ground (even if this album sucked or not). groups like Foetus are highly indebted to Lou Reed, but that's another story...

at any rate, you keep referring back to the whole "saying this sucks is a compliment to Lou, who meant for it to suck" thing, so idk. I guess this conversation is at a standstill.

for what it's worth, I don't care for the album itself, but I just don't think getting hung up on what the album 'tried to do' is the best way to look at things.

Album Rating: 1.0

Only when it comes to this one.

This album has an overriding point to it.

Getting hung up on "what it tried to do" makes sense though since it did it perfectly.

Well you keep arguing that "intent didn't matter, it's who the listener who matters" and that was my only rebuttal.

But now that you've moved topics: Lou Reed wasn't trying to break ground, he was trying to say "fuck you record label!" This isn't John Cage or Throbbing Gristle, and I don't think it's fair to compare it to them (which is what I assume when you say "artists who broke new ground")

I appreciate how much it influenced future artists, I really do, but being influential doesn't necessarily make something great, even if it does make it important.

again, I'm not saying he "tried" to break new ground. but, he did, intentionally or not.

and no, being influential doesn't mean great, certainly not (i even stated that in my earlier comment), i would just expect you to be able to appreciate the abrasive nature of the music a bit more than others. that was more of a side note

tl; dr - no need to pretend to like this if you don't. if you hate it, 1 it. but, in my mind, "Lou Reed meant for this to suck and therefore that's all there is to it" is a restrictive way to look at things. that's all i meant to get across without getting all long-winded.

"and therefore that's all there is to it"

Have you completely missed my point? I was commending him for making this and leaving room for people to like it, I was just pointing out that those who like it are basically saying his intentions were a failure.

Have you completely missed my point?

If Loud Reed was attempting to make one the worst things ever, are you saying he failed by not 1ing it? If you've heard it in full: You should 1 it out of respect for Lou Reed : )