Interview with MTV - Next Music Video, Tour, & ‘Cola’

[reputation 6,314]

She's cheapening her art by pulling Cola. Is it really because of the Harvey line? Because first off, wasn't it "Ah he's in the sky" to begin with, and secondly, it's not even in reference to him so why??

 

The second an artist begins censoring their work for the comfort of others, appeasing the current zeitgeist, they've lost.

it was never "ah he's", that was something that was incorrectly put in lyric books. both official and live lyrics state harvey. also harvey sexually harassed and raped multiple women. if lana feels as if she doesn't want him incorporated into her music so be it 

[LaMartine 1,201]

I don't think its a matter of being "comfortable" to quote now or tomorrow or in 5-10 years. The manson murders and jonestown massacre just because they happened decades ago doesn't mean its "okay or not okay" then and now to use as reference.They are horrible events that no matter how many years will pass they will be still important and shocking parts of history.

Who says it will be ok in 5-10 years for weinstein? and not just for weinstein but for any horrible event like the manson murders.who says when it's 'okay' or not for that and how they draw the line for the Harvey incident but not for the manson murders? No it's not delicate because it involves people and new voices, they are all delicate not just the Harvey incident. the manson murders is delicate too, jonestown massacre is delicate too, pedophilia, violence and so on. They are all important. If singing about manson is "okay" then it should be "okay" for Cola too. There is no difference in those events because they are all in fact important and shocking and horrible. As for the Harvey case, the only "new and fresh" bit is the exposure of Harvey's actions. The stories of those women that came forward are not "fresh". They all came forward to share stories that happened 5-10-20 years ago.

If people are okay with lana or any other artist singing about the manson murders,jonestown,lolita and pedophilia,violence etc then they should be okay for Harvey in the Cola song too. No exceptions. They can't cherry pick and say "Oh! I love when lana is singing about the manson murderss in that song yess i love it, but no no no i dont want her to sing about Harvey in that song". This is hypocritical. They either won't like ALL of those songs or they like them all. No exceptions.

 

Well of course Lolita and that theme is a taboo. It's about an adult molesting a 12 year old.Also there is rumors about the author of Lolita being a pedophile.As for clockwork orange, UV was named after that novel and that novel features probably the most famous rape scene in a movie of all time. Yet lana is singing without any problem about all the above. There is no issue singing for the manson murders or the jonestown massacres (where 909 people died) or pedophilia,domestic violence,etc yet somehow its not "ok" for her to sing about Harvey? Says who?

And how exactly those tragedies "transcended censorship" just because they are decades old? What about the manson murders and how Sharon Tate was brutally murdered with her baby still inside her?? What about her sister that is still alive to this day and has to live everyday with the horror of what happened to her sister? Are you going to tell her "hey get over it.it's decades old.people can sing about it" ?

What about the 900+ dead people in Jonestown massacre? They are all dead. It's okay to sing about them but not for Harvey? How? Who says that?

 

Ramones, Neil Young, David Bowie, and many more acts were singing about the Manson murders/referring to Manson very early on,so is time still an issue for these people? what about all the rappers who refer to heinous crimes making punchlines out of them too?

"time" is no excuse whether it's decades old, or 1 year old or fresh. People use columbine,manson etc all the time. It's not even a matter of what is "socially acceptable" either. It's not socially acceptable to sing about being beaten either but lana does it. so what?

 

 

I think it's utterly ridiculous to say that Lana is upset by the Harvey incident because I'm sure she is helluva upset about the manson murders too, the jonestown massacre,pedophilia,violence. She is upset for ALL of those things but she still sings about all of them, so why not sing about Harvey too? There is absolutely no logic in this. No logic at how people assume and say "ohh it's okay for lana to sing about manson murders who cares its decades old but noooo it's not okay to sing about Harvey" Where is the logic? I see none. Just because one event is 5-10-20 years old doesn't take away the horror and importance from it. They will be all equally upsetting.

We can't be "okay" with one and "not okay" with the other. We will be okay with ALL of them or not at all.

 

The only reason lana agreed and did the smart move to remove Cola is because people will be disgusting and try to bully and ruin her. Not because it "upset" her. Yes what happened with Harvey upset her just like how the manson murders and pedophilia and everything else she sings about in her songs upset her too.

 

You guys keep mentioning that with time these cases push through censorship, so what? Does that change the pain of over 900 families? That's how many died in jonestown. Does that change the 7 victims families that were left affected by the murders the manson family carried out? Will the pain miraculously disappear for the victims of Harvey Weinstein? No. So how come in your minds Lana singing about the manson family, domestic violence, pedophilia etc and demonstrating rape in the video with eli roth or mass murder like in jonestown massacre inspired freak video is ok due to "time passing"? people are still widely affected by this and copycat crimes too. no matter how much time passes, one isn't better than the other.

You guys just want to make yourselves feel better about your hypocrisy towards the matter because you conveniently forgot that the other things Lana sings about that you love and treasure is just as "bad" as the Harvey line in Cola.

 

 

I don't agree with you, I actually think time changes perspective on things. What is general culture and what is hot piping current events are two different things, this is why people say "it's too soon". I am personally more affected by the Harvey Weinstein claims because i'm a young woman soon to be thrust into the workforce, 1960s sociopathic sex cults and murderers don't affect me the same way even tho they were horrific. They have relevance today and have been analysed/talked about enough that time allows for an artist to quickly cite them in their body of work; I'm not against Lana talking about dark themes and in fact there are elements of pedophilia , female subjugation/objectification that ring true and grounds her art in real life.

 

And historically artists have always referred to the past to make a point about the present rather than use what is going on if it's sensitive and there's censorship. And I believe that an artist censoring themselves isn't losing, a good and mature artist probably is capable of getting their point across differently.   

 

Like think about "The Betrothed", the novel by A. Manzoni: it's considered one of the main opuses of italian literature, the first italian modern novel and the first one to use modern italian. It was written when the country was under foreign (Austrian) occupation and it was strictly forbidden to talk negatively about the regimen but "lucky for him" Italy has already been occupied different times by other nations. Manzoni "pretended" (everyone knew it was a bluff/not real/jocking) that he found a manuscript in an attic about a romance and updated the language for current readers. But the book isn't just about that, (not only it tackles themes of human psyche and morality) it's about living under Spanish occupation, how it means for a country and its functioning and how it affects every strata of a society; and more importantly it was absolutely a critique of the "current" austrian occupation and somewhat a pamphlet for a free country.

A lot of artists flirt between what is acceptable and what is taboo, and it is a widespread belief that time changes perspectives, there's no strict rule to how handle events except of what the general population think. It may not seem logical for some but it is for me, I understand that if we cared, we will always have to deal to what is average/acceptable by popular standards. And maybe it upsets lana personally how someone she knew was harassing maybe raping so many women, when something makes you this uncertain then you take it out until you can articulate your feelings better and you (and in this case) society have/s healed.Also the crimes aren't even the same, sexual harassment and murder aren't the same. Murder victims are cold dead and sexual harassment victims have a hard time to be heard to be believed ,that's why it's delicate; and this is just to see things one way before i write a novel about that too. I mean I don't really know much about the philosophy of passing of time, but if I did i think I would do a better job at expressing myself because Time allows for things to become from personal to belonging and available to everyone. So if you can't see how things can change when time passes we will never agree. Anyway in a broad sense I expect an artist to be smart about their art, not everything should be spoon fed in a low context matter where everything is super direct, and artist also have the ability to change their opinions. Lana had a some time to process the weinstein matter, by the time this interview happened a lot of articles talked about "cola" specifically so she knew what everyone was thinking. She made the decision to take it off, and probably she discussed that with the interviewer beforehand that's why it seems she's heavily suggesting. Just because an artist seems to "cater" and to "self-censor" doesn't always mean it's a bad thing. They are people too and when new information arrives they also need the time and take a step back to think about this on a greater perspective and scale, this is how people continue on learning and maturing.  

[Escapism 5,391]

I actually really liked this interview, it was cute, and the questions were pretty nice as well.

I'm gonna be honest though, I don't care about Cola not being played anymore. It was nice during the Paradise tour but as of how she's singing live right now I don't think it'd be as good . Anyways, I'm glad she said something in regards to the Harvey situation and that song in particular as well.

[slang 1,509]

I really don't know why LDR makes it so hard on herself or Cola. While it was proper and thoughtful for her to support the women who are voicing concern and outrage about Harvey, she can (truthfully) say the song is 4+ years before the fact of the controversy and that she didn't know about the scope of the problem with regards to Harvey (perhaps even truthfully). This means that the usual fiction disclaimer can be applied to her work (i.e., .. any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental). However, regardlesss of whether she knew about Harvey's scope, the fiction disclaimer can still be applied, imo, because its function is to allow art to imitate life (or make us think about life) while protecting the artist's right to do so (i.e., without being attacked legally). However, the song is also really complicated with respect to supporting any specific Harvey reference, other than phonemes in the studio/sung performance. The "official lyrics", which I'm taking to be the liner notes on my physical Paradise copy, don't refer to him. Also the song is not just about a Harvey character but a Cola character, who is arguably in a consensual (maybe counter-predatory?) relationship with the Harvey character. Furthermore, the diamond imagery isn't related to Harvey's alleged MO for getting sexual favors (promises of fame, threats of blacklisting). So this is not the Harvey F. Weinstein situation that we are currently outraged about. The only other thing worth opining is that given everything she said in the interview about the song (including how she said it), it seems unlikely (to me) Weinstein tried anything specifically with her. 

 

Retiring Cola "from the catalog"?  I'll believe that when it's pulled from spotify (and I'll also be checking to see if the streams start climbing on it). I can see her pulling it from live, though, especially if it makes her sad now to sing it.

[Valerie 1,379]

I don't agree with you, I actually think time changes perspective on things. What is general culture and what is hot piping current events are two different things, this is why people say "it's too soon". I am personally more affected by the Harvey Weinstein claims because i'm a young woman soon to be thrust into the workforce, 1960s sociopathic sex cults and murderers don't affect me the same way even tho they were horrific. They have relevance today and have been analysed/talked about enough that time allows for an artist to quickly cite them in their body of work; I'm not against Lana talking about dark themes and in fact there are elements of pedophilia , female subjugation/objectification that ring true and grounds her art in real life.

 

And historically artists have always referred to the past to make a point about the present rather than use what is going on if it's sensitive and there's censorship. And I believe that an artist censoring themselves isn't losing, a good and mature artist probably is capable of getting their point across differently.   

 

Like think about "The Betrothed", the novel by A. Manzoni: it's considered one of the main opuses of italian literature, the first italian modern novel and the first one to use modern italian. It was written when the country was under foreign (Austrian) occupation and it was strictly forbidden to talk negatively about the regimen but "lucky for him" Italy has already been occupied different times by other nations. Manzoni "pretended" (everyone knew it was a bluff/not real/jocking) that he found a manuscript in an attic about a romance and updated the language for current readers. But the book isn't just about that, (not only it tackles themes of human psyche and morality) it's about living under Spanish occupation, how it means for a country and its functioning and how it affects every strata of a society; and more importantly it was absolutely a critique of the "current" austrian occupation and somewhat a pamphlet for a free country.

A lot of artists flirt between what is acceptable and what is taboo, and it is a widespread belief that time changes perspectives, there's no strict rule to how handle events except of what the general population think. It may not seem logical for some but it is for me, I understand that if we cared, we will always have to deal to what is average/acceptable by popular standards. And maybe it upsets lana personally how someone she knew was harassing maybe raping so many women, when something makes you this uncertain then you take it out until you can articulate your feelings better and you (and in this case) society have/s healed.Also the crimes aren't even the same, sexual harassment and murder aren't the same. Murder victims are cold dead and sexual harassment victims have a hard time to be heard to be believed ,that's why it's delicate; and this is just to see things one way before i write a novel about that too. I mean I don't really know much about the philosophy of passing of time, but if I did i think I would do a better job at expressing myself because Time allows for things to become from personal to belonging and available to everyone. So if you can't see how things can change when time passes we will never agree. Anyway in a broad sense I expect an artist to be smart about their art, not everything should be spoon fed in a low context matter where everything is super direct, and artist also have the ability to change their opinions. Lana had a some time to process the weinstein matter, by the time this interview happened a lot of articles talked about "cola" specifically so she knew what everyone was thinking. She made the decision to take it off, and probably she discussed that with the interviewer beforehand that's why it seems she's heavily suggesting. Just because an artist seems to "cater" and to "self-censor" doesn't always mean it's a bad thing. They are people too and when new information arrives they also need the time and take a step back to think about this on a greater perspective and scale, this is how people continue on learning and maturing.  

You basically admit that you don't care for the murders because it doesn't affect you "the same way" and you only care for the weinstein incident because it's new. So that means in 5-10 years you won't care for that either anymore? Interesting view. Also Manson was trying to be a musician and couldn't make it so he used young people to commit heinous crimes in his honour to gain a "legacy".

But what is making a "point" in Heroin, Freak music video about the present? Lana filmed a rape reenactment vid with Eli Roth and you know there is people in the world being raped right now. Too soon?

 

 

"Murder victims are cold dead and sexual harassment victims have a hard time to be heard to be believed ,that's why it's delicate;"

What about the families affected?They never stop grieving.900+ families affected by Jonestown massacre that Lana uses in her Freak video. So if Harvey killed these girls Lana could keep the Cola line because the girls would be dead. right? She made the choice to take it off (not that she had any choice in this anyway) because she would be called a rapist enabler simply because it's "new".

You say "time healsss" then I guess judging by your argument you won't care for the Harvey incident victims in a few years either. I want to see how "time will heal" the dead victims though. They don't even have any time.They are dead.

 

What about the references Bowie, Ramones and Neil Young and more artists made about Manson very early too? It wasn't decades later.They made references too soon after the murders.There wasn't enough time passed for it to be "okay to be referenced" in due time. So?

 

How exactly those tragedies "transcended censorship" just because they are decades old? What about the manson murders and how Sharon Tate was brutally murdered with her baby still inside her?? What about her sister that is still alive to this day and has to live everyday with the horror of what happened to her sister? Are you going to tell her "hey get over it.it's decades old.people can sing about it" ?

What about the 900+ dead people in Jonestown massacre? They are all dead. It's okay to sing about them but not for Harvey? How? Who says that?

 

You are acting like being a sexual abuse victim is worse than being murdered. What logic is this? You don't even know what these murdered victims went through before their final breath. Murder victims don't even have a second chance.They can't do anything, time won't "heal" them.They are dead. At least sexual abuse victims as horrible as it is,they still have a pulse.

Sexual abuse victims have a chance in life to live and heal as much as possible and see better and happy days.The families still have the person in flesh with them even if they get sexually abused.The dead victims don't even have that.The horror and pain they went through before leaving their last breath I guess doesn't matter right? Because they are cold dead. Their families living with the memory of this don't matter either probably yes?  What do murder victims families have? Songs by Lana?

 

You think that Lana would censor Cola if she could get away with people calling her a rape enabler and bully her and try to ruin her career? Nop, she would keep it exactly like how she has kept every other controversial topic in her songs. She only censored it because she knew people are hypocrites and would try to ruin her.

 

Murder victims don't have a chance to rehabilitate their lives. Sharon Tates baby didn't even get a life. No problem though, it doesn't matter it happened in the 60s. Her living sister doesn't matter either. Sharon is just a cold dead apparently.

You have no idea what the murder victims went through before dying.The horror and pain and agony often times fighting for their lives before dying.

 

An example out of thousands: Jyoti Singh was an indian young 23 yo girl that got gang raped brutally in 2012.She died 13 days later due to her injuries.That girl fought for her life, she wanted to live.Despite what happened to her she wanted to live. She doesn't matter either anymore I guess.Her family doesn't matter either.She's a cold dead now.

 

While all those incidents are horrible, we need to keep in mind that despite the differences obviously in being a dead victim or an alive victim there is no doubt that any victim, all victims do have indeed a "second chance" if you'd like to call it that way because they are still breathing and moving as best as possible with support through life. Dead victims have nothing.No chances, no voices, nothing.

The point is not to make a difference or set a standard to judge what is "ok" and what is "not ok" to use as reference in songs, arts, books, movies, music videos and so on. Every situation, every crime are all either ok to be used in arts,songs etc or not ok at all. Obviously Lana and any other artists don't have any bad intentions with writing those songs. However it's hypocritical to cherry pick and point a finger at them to yell "you will only sing about those murders because yayy they happened 5-20-40 years ago so it's cool, but not about Harvey because of the victims that came forward with their stories 20 years later and it's delicate and "fresh" eventhough the stories are not even fresh they happened 20 years ago but yeah let's jump on the same bandwagon as everyone does and ignore also the families of the dead victims,and sharon's sister living everyday with the memory and the movies and songs about her sisters death so yeah, don't sing about Harvey Lana, we will bully you and call you a rape enabler."

All of those cases are all equally delicate. We can't cherry pick and say one is okay and the other is not okay to sing about. We will either be okay with all or not with any at all.

 

[LaMartine 1,201]

You basically admit that you don't care for the murders because it doesn't affect you "the same way" and you only care for the weinstein incident because it's new. So that means in 5-10 years you won't care for that either anymore? Interesting view. Also Manson was trying to be a musician and couldn't make it so he used young people to commit heinous crimes in his honour to gain a "legacy".

But what is making a "point" in Heroin, Freak music video about the present? Lana filmed a rape reenactment vid with Eli Roth and you know there is people in the world being raped right now. Too soon?

 

 

i'm not gonna quote everything you say and answer in full, I'm just gonna say that I don't see everything in black and white I don't apply moral calvinism for what is right and what is wrong, neither do I believe the 60s to be the beacon of what is le bon gôut. I never said sexual harassment was worse than murders, unfortunately those women, men and children who were:are harassed find i more difficult to come out: a lot of these women have claimed that their managers instead of protecting them pushed them to harvey saying that he was a scary guy and of they could survive a meeting with him they were strong and could survive anything. These people because of the culture got used to be treated like victims, and the abuse and rape has become something that had to be endured because that's the way of the business. Harvey was a bully and was also somewhat close to Lana. For me, this doesn't even compare to the 60s murders, it's a different league of affair completely that I see through to new lenses. Lana has written a song that was supposed to be ironic and fun about a mogul preying on women and doing the fast life, she also quoted the crystals line "he hit me and it felt like a kiss". Both songs, UV and and Cola, feature things that Lana has grown out of and doesn't want to perform anymore. It's like most of us who cringe at stuff we said and did 4 years ago except that for her it's released songs. So what, she wants to take it out?? She's needs time or she's acquiring a new perspective? I don't remember myself or people on this forum throwing stones at her tbh. I just believe that an artist who decides to take something off is mostly for personal reasons like growth, doubt and etc not just for fear mongering and censorship like y'all are implying. And an Artist should be free to take back what they said and change their opinions. Cola is a song that heavily implied Harvey and featured a starlet that was very eager to be in a relationship with him despite the public opinion and "his wife". And now lana realises that that stuff isn't funny anymore, because what was really happening were a plethora of women getting harassed and getting raped. The song that heavily implied Harvey, someone she knew, wasn't the same song anymore. And now, if i may add, with time she can change the lyric and take back her song, that's what i believe. Would that even happen? 

 

It's like you don't wan to see how things are supposed to be seen individually and not all dumped in the same bucket, she's not singing about murdering celebrities/people for a current manson figure. She was singing about being in a consensual scandalous relationship with a man-figure she knew very well and now turns out to be a rapist/harasser and she's taking it back. But I don't think we will ever agree on things because we really don't see things the same way. 

[Many Tears Ago 51]

Sharon Tate was 8 and a half months pregnant at the time of her murder, btw.

 

Cultural infantalists lose again.

 

[LaMartine 1,201]

Sharon Tate was 8 and a half months pregnant at the time of her murder, btw.

 

Cultural infantalists lose again.

 

and i never found that interesting to talk about. Never was interested in Manson or references of him, but that's what American's do and talking about Manson isn't prohibited like talking about Harvey isn't prohibited just to remind you. But talking about having a consensual relationship with him now that he's a known rapist/harasser, and that many women for 30 years were afraid to come off as liars because rape culture makes the song embarrassing. Not the same thing that censorship is. All these women (and others) stayed shut because relationships with moguls were portrayed like in that song: it's their fault, they were the instigators, they wanted the jewels, the favours and to become famous, they started it, and thus they are lying about being raped. It furthers a toxic culture and lana is seeing it's doing more harm than good and she doesn't like it anymore. She doesn't like it, but y'all don't want to understand that. It will probably take her some time to start seeing things differently. 

 

But if you're going to be like this and belittle me because I don't agree with you, all right. But you can't dump all examples into one mold and then talk about double standards.   

[Many Tears Ago 51]

and i never found that interesting to talk about. Never was interested in Manson or references of him, but that's what American's do and talking about Manson isn't prohibited like talking about Harvey isn't prohibited just to remind you. But talking about having a consensual relationship with him now that he's a known rapist/harasser, and that many women for 30 years were afraid to come off as liars because rape culture makes the song embarrassing. Not the same thing that censorship is. All these women (and others) stayed shut because relationships with moguls were portrayed like in that song: it's their fault, they were the instigators, they wanted the jewels, the favours and to become famous, they started it, and thus they are lying about being raped. It furthers a toxic culture and lana is seeing it's doing more harm than good and she doesn't like it anymore. She doesn't like it, but y'all don't want to understand that. It will probably take her some time to start seeing things differently.

 

But if you're going to be like this and belittle me because I don't agree with you, all right. But you can't dump all examples into one mold and then talk about double standards.

 

Lmao *you* don't find it interesting to talk about. Okay, but why doesn't Lana apologize? Murder is murder and that song is obviously glamourizing the manson crimes.

 

You're so in bed with this oversensitive, infantilizing rhetoric I don't know why I'm going to bother, but here goes.

 

Your argument is objectively wrong to me because it works on the surmisation that Cola is outwardly about Harvey when it isn't, and nothing in the song points to it being that way. Perhaps you weren't around back then or don't remember, but Lana was very open about the song being based on a comment Barrie James O'Neil made to her in private at the time. This in of itself doesn't disprove your idea, but why would she juxtapose predatorial behavior, or let alone Harvey Weinstein in a song with something that a boyfriend said to her?? Honestly, except for the chorus, I don't believe the song's got anything to do with Barrie but let's be very clear that no matter what Lana says it is about a relationship she experienced herself. The older man theme is based on a specific person who Lana knew when she was young, there's plenty of evidence to support that. Not just that, Lana had the opportunity to say "Yes this song is about Harvey" when she was asked about it during the interview, but she didn't. She said it was about a "Harvey type" character. Not Harvey. So if we're going to start censoring by association alone to save anyone any hurt feelings, why doesn't Lana censor half of her work then? The older man theme is overarching.

Censorship for the sake of censorship alone is never a good thing. Lana can do whatever she pleases obviously, and I know her intentions are good but it doesn't change the fact that she's adding to this culture of infatalizing censorship that is intellectually dishonest and literally panders to the lowest common denominator. Literally the name Harvey is mentioned once in the bridge and it's during a goddamn Beatles reference, anyone who's discomforted by that line due to recent events with Harvey Weinstein, assault victim or not, needs to pull their pants up and move along.

 

BTW, is the song about Harvey to you or does it simply imply a person like him? You seem to have said it's both.

[Valerie 1,379]

i'm not gonna quote everything you say and answer in full, I'm just gonna say that I don't see everything in black and white I don't apply moral calvinism for what is right and what is wrong, neither do I believe the 60s to be the beacon of what is le bon gôut. I never said sexual harassment was worse than murders, unfortunately those women, men and children who were:are harassed find i more difficult to come out: a lot of these women have claimed that their managers instead of protecting them pushed them to harvey saying that he was a scary guy and of they could survive a meeting with him they were strong and could survive anything. These people because of the culture got used to be treated like victims, and the abuse and rape has become something that had to be endured because that's the way of the business. Harvey was a bully and was also somewhat close to Lana. For me, this doesn't even compare to the 60s murders, it's a different league of affair completely that I see through to new lenses. Lana has written a song that was supposed to be ironic and fun about a mogul preying on women and doing the fast life, she also quoted the crystals line "he hit me and it felt like a kiss". Both songs, UV and and Cola, feature things that Lana has grown out of and doesn't want to perform anymore. It's like most of us who cringe at stuff we said and did 4 years ago except that for her it's released songs. So what, she wants to take it out?? She's needs time or she's acquiring a new perspective? I don't remember myself or people on this forum throwing stones at her tbh. I just believe that an artist who decides to take something off is mostly for personal reasons like growth, doubt and etc not just for fear mongering and censorship like y'all are implying. And an Artist should be free to take back what they said and change their opinions. Cola is a song that heavily implied Harvey and featured a starlet that was very eager to be in a relationship with him despite the public opinion and "his wife". And now lana realises that that stuff isn't funny anymore, because what was really happening were a plethora of women getting harassed and getting raped. The song that heavily implied Harvey, someone she knew, wasn't the same song anymore. And now, if i may add, with time she can change the lyric and take back her song, that's what i believe. Would that even happen? 

 

It's like you don't wan to see how things are supposed to be seen individually and not all dumped in the same bucket, she's not singing about murdering celebrities/people for a current manson figure. She was singing about being in a consensual scandalous relationship with a man-figure she knew very well and now turns out to be a rapist/harasser and she's taking it back. But I don't think we will ever agree on things because we really don't see things the same way. 

It's not about black and white but truth is that sexual abuse victims do have more chances than murder victims for obvious reasons.It's not about making something more important than the other or label an incident as "okay" to talk about after a certain period of time because that is not even possible.No matter how many years will pass whether an incident happened in the 60s or 70s or 80s or happening right now or will happen tomorrow they are all still horrible and vile crimes with victims. Every victim is important, living and dead ones.The families have to live and deal with the horrible memory of what happened to their beloved ones, living or dead.The dead victims don't even have a chance to live, don't even have a chance for their voice to be heard, they have nothing they are done, they are permanently done in every way.

 

Lana wrote Cola way before any of those allegations surfaced.It has nothing to do with what Harvey did.As for the Harvey case and the victims, a lot of those victims stories are very questionable and hard to believe. There is no doubt that a certain number of those victims are lying for their benefit. Lana is not just singing about being in a consensual scandalous relationship with a rich man she knew, because that very same scenario happens everyday. It's a reality that always existed and will keep existing.

The only reason she removed the song now is to not have people bullying her and trying to ruin her career.The same way she is upset for the murders,violence,pedophilia,every other incident she is singing about in her songs,she will be upset for this too and all the future incidents as well.

The "time heals" and "it needs time to overcome censorship" is pure bullshit to me personally because nobody can be absolutely sure how much time a certain incident,a murder,a rape,an assault,any other horrible incident that happened years ago or recently or will happen tomorrow will need to "transcend censorship" because everyone is different, each individual will react differently, the victims families will never "be okay" with the movies,the songs,art about what happened to their beloved ones.Many artists sang abt those right at the time the incident was still "fresh", some people were fine with it and some were not. Some others reacted and so on. Lana wants and is free to sing about all of those in her songs with no exceptions.She should be able to sing about Cola too the same way it is "okay" for her to sing for the manson murders,lolita,massacres etc without having a bunch of hypocrites running to label her as rape enabler or any other vile remark just because they lack of common sense.They don't like her singing about Harvey?They shouldn't like either her singing about pedophilia,murders,domestic violence either.

 

 

[salvatore 21,763]

i dont understand y ppl think it's entirely abt barrie or isn't about Harvey

 

Barrie only gave her that one line bc she thought it was funny and so out there

 

if lana reuses lyrics from her unreleased catalogue that does not mean her new song is about the same damn person it was from the old song

 

barrie is not a Harvey type character

 

fuck she was literally going to lunches and being seen with him several months prior to the album's deadline for music, she wrote his name, the song is about Harvey overall, and the fantasy he gives. He's so rich and powerful he's pretty much a 'god' in sense of influence within Hollywood, he has diamonds and jewels and money floating above her head, she's his pretty baby because she's so damn young compared to him

 

iirc the dude even said his wife would let him cheat on business trips

 

'i know your wife and she wouldn't mind' 

 

is literally a direct statement of that 

 

EVERYONE knew about his abusive nature, it was a general Hollywood secret for YEARS, it was either you thought it was so outlandish and unrealistic you turned it to a joke- like Lana had done, as she was on good terms with him years after while the women he actually abused stopped all contact w him n the company.. or- you didn't do or say shit and hid in the shadows. 

 

the lyric book is a notorious fuck up. her lyric books are KNOWN for being fucked up and awkward. 

 

point blank final case the goddamn song IS about Harvey/ Harvey type of character as he didn't do shit for her in the industry besides songs (Y&B was not part of any Weinstein fuckery and that shit is one of her most known, especially moreso than Maleficent or Big Eyes.) that never really skyrocketed her net-worth or impression in Hollywood, but the Harvey she may have wanted in her song was gonna give her every damn thing she wanted.

[Valerie 1,379]

and i never found that interesting to talk about. Never was interested in Manson or references of him, but that's what American's do and talking about Manson isn't prohibited like talking about Harvey isn't prohibited just to remind you. But talking about having a consensual relationship with him now that he's a known rapist/harasser, and that many women for 30 years were afraid to come off as liars because rape culture makes the song embarrassing. Not the same thing that censorship is. All these women (and others) stayed shut because relationships with moguls were portrayed like in that song: it's their fault, they were the instigators, they wanted the jewels, the favours and to become famous, they started it, and thus they are lying about being raped. It furthers a toxic culture and lana is seeing it's doing more harm than good and she doesn't like it anymore. She doesn't like it, but y'all don't want to understand that. It will probably take her some time to start seeing things differently. 

 

But if you're going to be like this and belittle me because I don't agree with you, all right. But you can't dump all examples into one mold and then talk about double standards.   

 

Exactly. You said it right there.You only care what you are interested in or things that only affect you. You just admitted it. In your first response to me you said "those murders don't affect me, I'M a woman in the workforce. I'M, I'M, I'M" and now you're further reiterating saying "IIII never found that interesting to talk about. NEVER INTERESTED ME" you DON'T truly care about these issues as a whole and only bat an eye at the risk of things affecting YOUR life. Selfish and concerning. It reminded me of how Rose McGowan defended the convicted child molester Victor Salva saying he's sweet and gentle and that she isn't interested in what he did and now she's trying to besmirch actors names because of Harvey.

 

You say "Lana also quoted the crystals line "he hit me and it felt like a kiss". Both songs, UV and and Cola, feature things that Lana has grown out of and doesn't want to perform anymore" but Lana has been singing the he hit me line at her most recent shows. She stopped for a couple and now she's singing it again. Grown out of it? Obviously not. Or did you conveniently forget that just like you conveniently forgot that besides namedropping Harvey in Cola, Lana sings about an array of fucked up things in her songs and references very real, heinous crimes on top of that too? It is a double standard bc you are pretending to be offended over a predators name being mentioned in a song but NOT offended over another predator being namedropped in a song. The same way you say people simplify these sexual abuse victims, is the same way you simplified murder victims simply by referring to them as "cold dead" as if they never suffered BEFORE being "cold dead" to their last breath or their families never suffer. Try telling their families that and see how far you get. What do they have? A Lana Del Rey song and video that glamorizes their families murders to comfort them? Hilarious. You say "historically artists have always referred to the past to make a point about the present" and how does Freak's Jonestown massacre video make a point about the present other than doing it simply for aesthetic pleasure? Heroin? You cant answer these things because you know it's simply to evoke visuals for the listener and/or viewer. For you these things are more visually pleasing than picturing Harvey's big fat body dominating actresses. I dont know why you just dont admit it, because that's all it boils down to in the end. You say "I won't quote everything you say" and that's because you can't answer it. 900+ families involved in the Jonestown massacre but you ignored that. Now you're getting your panties tied up over Harvey having his name in Cola.

 

You excuse the Harvey censorship saying "It furthers a toxic culture and lana is seeing it's doing more harm than good" but what does Ultraviolence do? What does Heroin do exactly? Hundred Dollar Bill? Smarty? What do most of Lana's songs do regarding being involved with dangerous men, some that "swing at her" and she says she likes it, domestic violence, some that live generally risky lifestyles, suicide, being a side bitch, pedophilia, etc? Those do not "further a toxic culture"? Because I see a lot of "nymphets" on tumblr and instagram, some that are very young, listen to Lana and fall into these topics, quoting Lana's songs to confirm to themselves that it's all okay. So how come Harvey's name in Cola furthers a toxic culture, yet Lana's other material (and we all know there's LOTS of it) doesn't?

[Valerie 1,379]

barrie is not a Harvey type character

You sure abt that? He follows a bunch of underage girls on his Instagram and commented with kisses on a 16 year old girls video of her sucking on her fingers seductively. And he knows that girl is underage because he even posted about her going missing last year, citing her age and everything. Even Emile in one of Lana's videos on Instagram said a bunch of "Lolita" girls message him, so obviously this isn't a foreign concept for people affiliated with Lana. Difference is, Barrie took it a step too far. Barrie isn't innocent, and I bet there's a reason Lana stopped following him again after she liked his Negative Creep by Nirvana tweet in Jan 2016.

[salvatore 21,763]

You sure abt that? He follows a bunch of underage girls on his Instagram and commented with kisses on a 16 year old girls video of her sucking on her fingers seductively. And he knows that girl is underage because he even posted about her going missing last year, citing her age and everything. Even Emile in one of Lana's videos on Instagram said a bunch of "Lolita" girls message him, so obviously this isn't a foreign concept for people affiliated with Lana. Difference is, Barrie took it a step too far. Barrie isn't innocent, and I bet there's a reason Lana stopped following him again after she liked his Negative Creep by Nirvana tweet in Jan 2016.

yea im pretty sure barrie wasn't married

 

yea im pretty sure barrie doesn't have enough influence to be seen a god in the sky

 

yea im pretty sure barrie isnt close to being rich enough to throw diamonds and glamour to any young girl that wants to follow him to the end

 

You know exactly what I meant.

[Valerie 1,379]

yea im pretty sure barrie wasn't married

 

yea im pretty sure barrie doesn't have enough influence to be seen a god in the sky

 

yea im pretty sure barrie isnt close to being rich enough to throw diamonds and glamour to any young girl that wants to follow him to the end

 

You know exactly what I meant.

 

And you know exactly what I meant, it's why none of you can answer my questions and keep dodging them actually. Just like my previous post to you that you couldn't answer, and now the question about Barrie lmao. So it's okay for Barrie to find underage girls sexually attractive to the point of posting kisses on videos of them sucking their fingers seductively?

[Many Tears Ago 51]

Even if it _is_ a reference to Harvey (I did look up their pics), that doesn't it's more than just a one liner and that the song is exclusively about him. When you consider the fact she only writes about men who she's had relationships, it's pretty obvious it's more likely written about Arthur Miller, maybe even Gene Campbell.

yea im pretty sure barrie wasn't married

 

yea im pretty sure barrie doesn't have enough influence to be seen a god in the sky

 

yea im pretty sure barrie isnt close to being rich enough to throw diamonds and glamour to any young girl that wants to follow him to the end

 

You know exactly what I meant.

The sky line is in reference to the Beatles, it's not about making him a God. Jesus.

[salvatore 21,763]

And you know exactly what I meant, it's why none of you can answer my questions and keep dodging them actually. Just like my previous post to you that you couldn't answer, and now the question about Barrie lmao. So it's okay for Barrie to find underage girls sexually attractive to the point of posting kisses on videos of them sucking their fingers seductively?

Didn't know this thread was about Barrie ! sorry SWM for getting off topic like i usually do 

 

it's a dumb joke about me goin off topic w threads swm is in, not callin you a single white male but lmaoo

[Valerie 1,379]

Didn't know this thread was about Barrie ! sorry SWM for getting off topic 

So you can't answer the fact that Barrie follows and interacts with a bunch of underage female Lana fans & even posts kisses and approving messages on videos of these underage girls sucking on their fingers seductively. Yet you get offended over Harvey's name lmao! The hypocrisy lives on. Not sure how disapproving of this makes me a single white male, but I guess that's your attempt at diverting the convo again?

Even if it _is_ a reference to Harvey (I did look up their pics), that doesn't it's more than just a one liner and that the song is exclusively about him. When you consider the fact she only writes about men who she's had relationships, it's pretty obvious it's more likely written about Arthur Miller, maybe even Gene Campbell.

The sky line is in reference to the Beatles, it's not about making him a God. Jesus.

They're hypocrites, plain and simple. It's why LaMartine openly admitted she will not quote and answer everything I wrote and it's why salvatore keeps dodging the question about Barrie meanwhile acting like he's in hysterics over Harvey being mentioned in Cola as well as my first post to him which he conveniently dodged too. They don't give a shit about these girls that were abused by Harvey. They only pretend to care so they're not looked upon as enabling assholes and get shunned, and that's exactly why Lana is appeasing to this as well.

[harveyswife 452]

I miss when lana didn't feel like she needed to explain her music or videos. When she made music and videos for herself alone she didn't give a fuck what anybody thought about it. I miss that. "If you don't get it then forget it, 'cause I don't have to fuckin explain it ~~~"

[Tropico Roses 203]

I think the fact that she wrote Cola 4+ years ago almost makes her feel worse? Because that was when Harvey was doing this gross shit and either she was oblivious or made herself believe it was okay because everyone else made it seem like a normal thing he did. We now know that so many women tried to come forward in the past 10, 20, whatever number of years and no one would listen. I think we can all tell that she has become a much more sympathetic/empathetic person with many of LFL's songs being about current topics that affect everyone in this country/world, not just her personal relationships/feelings. I think she feels bad for glamorizing something that caused so many so much pain. In comparison to her songs about the abuse she personally experienced, those songs were for her to work through those times and gain better understanding. Cola is completely different from those songs.

 

You know when you wrote shit in a journal like 4 years ago and then you go back and read it and it has a much different meaning now? I think that's Cola for her and that's why she pulled it. I mean I'm sure she also knew people would give her shit for it, but I think equally as much its meaning just changed for her.

 

I think also she's understanding that her music does have an affect on the world and on her fans. Like with her deleting all her instas/tweets, and also just with the fact that she's said so many times that LFL was not only for her but for her fans too. She's becoming more aware and more vocal and I'm honestly proud of her for feeling more comfortable to speak up about the things she cares about. If anything, I think that's also part her "fuck what you think, I'm going to do what I think is right/what I believe in" attitude.