Amplifier - Archives

Thoughts While Looking at Loutallica’s Disappointing ‘Lulu’ Cover


View photo


Metallica and Lou Reed have unveiled the cover for their joint album, Lulu, due worldwide October 31st and in the U.S. November 1st. The Amplifier took a moment to reflect.

Amplifier Kreps: I'll say this: Lou Reed has gone a long, long way from working with Andy Warhol for his cover art. The album cover has been a dying art-form for the past decade thanks to iTunes, but that's no excuse to be blasé about it. Occasionally, I'm confronted by album art that is so terrible, so excruciating to look at, it actually makes me not want to listen to the music within. The cover isn't supposed to conspire against the music like that, and after Reed's 50 years in music, and Metallica's three decades, you'd think they'd know better by now. Metallica are a band whose greatest album features a dark black cover with a coiled snake, and that's Da Vinci compared to this Lulu eyesore. It's like the strange offspring of Yaz's Upstairs With Eric mannequins and the festering doll head found on one-time buzz band Dig's self-titled album. We were intrigued by the Loutallica collaboration, but this cover dulls the anticipation.

Amplifier Ganz: This is some series mid-'90s Marilyn Manson action. Maybe the word "Lulu" is scrawled in the blood of the art director who approved this cover concept in the first place. Just known that you were outdone by Lady Gaga, guys. And this fake Arctic Monkeys album cover we made.

View Comments