slang

Civilization is an infrastructure for people living peaceably and sharing and increasing resources (which implies a fair amount of socialism, even if you happen to be a western capitalist country). I think civilization mostly works. Also, while I cannot guarantee someone going back in time and "fixing it" so Hilary would have won in 2016 *wouldn't* have immediately caused WWIII (like that Twilight Zone episode where Kennedy's assassination was prevented), I do not think her track record for being "scum" is nearly as visible and/or self-evident as Trump's, whose record is uniformly distributed *before* and after his election (imo, but this is not a forum for discussing that). Kanye's personality isn't the problem; the problems are the problems. So saying that Trump raised Kanye's taxes (by making his state and property taxes essentially non-deductable for him) might have penetrated his dim "I am a god" skull a bit more; whereas saying he's a narcissist and needs an intervention just empowers him ("being bipolar is his superpower", afterall).

I would need to know exactly what Kanye said post SNL to assess your hypothesis; however, saying one needs an intervention on social media (with millions of people following) is kind of an insult, even if it's just a response to some weird-ass political stuff Kanye was saying (i.e., not to threats of violence on his part, where "an intervention" might actually be needed). However, arguing with a person politically about facts (and many have noted how easy it is to argue con wrt to this president) would have been less provocative, more respectful to Kanye, and may have gotten a more informative response from Kanye, or is it just Ye now? I think if she had just recited the chorus of Coachella, it might have been more helpful (to the both of them). Anyway, I needed to rant (#KanyeIsContagious, but #votingDemocratForLife).

I can't help thinking that the "loss for the culture" statement is ego-stroking in that she regrets his being on the Trump side while being as influential as he is/was for "the culture". Anyway this isn't a political response, it's sort of an interpersonal response to his rant, centering on personality problems and that is a mistake. I mean Kanye is Kanye and that's that. It's perfectly alright for Kanye to wear a MAGA hat while he performs and his rant was off the show, so no one should really care. However, Lana needs to step up her fact game a bit. It is not Trump's fault that the "pussy-grabber" line got him elected; the American people did that. She needs to remind people of the raping of mother nature more (e.g. walking away from the Paris accords, when bad weather is on the news every night) and countless other issues (e.g. immigration concentration camps for kids). Also the most pertinent question: where the hell are the blue MADA hats (Make America Decent Again)?

Lyrics might be appreciated for various reasons, but Get Free illustrates a fair amount of "resonance", meaning you might need to know the history behind some of the lyrics for them to be impactful. BTW, this is not one of my favorite songs from LFL (e.g., I like Change and Heroin more), though I like GF just fine, and it got me very interested in the music of Neil Young (which is no small debt for a song). As @yevgeniakrasnova (now @veniceglitch) pointed out (which lead me to think about the lyric) http://lanaboards.com/index.php?/topic/9222-lust-for-life-post-release-thread/?p=524551 The meaning of "out of the black and into the blue" in Get Free is a reversal of Neil Young's classic Hey Hey My My verse "out of the blue and into the black". Out of the blue And into the black They give you this But you pay for that And once you're gone You can never come back When you're out of the blue And into the black LDR, in classic sci-fi fashion, reverses the polarity on the lyric, for a more phoenix-like optimistic statement, countering the live fast/die young aesthetic often attributed to her. If you listen to HHMM and go to Wikipedia and read about the song, it seems plausibly important to LDR for a number of reasons. The song is about someone who becomes famous and burns out quickly (i.e. possibly dies, though the mention of Johnny Rotten in the song is confusing, as it was Sid Viscious that actually died, so maybe it's about becoming famous and losing relevance). Lastly (and as they say not least), Neil's HHMM song is also famous for the lyric "Rock and roll is here to stay; It's better to burn out than to fade away", which was partially quoted on Kurt Cobain's suicide note. That Cobain did this (quite understandably) freaked Neil the fuck out.

For Venice Bitch, I'm reminded of the Doors, especially wrt the moog, and maybe it's crossed a little with Simon and Garfunkel. She's influenced by artists like Cat Power and Father John Misty, who do longer tracks on occasion, and Jonathon Wilson, who do longer tracks plus significant jamming. I hope she took the primary role in creating the interlude music, as having longish instrumentals is a really big change for her, and one of the obvious ways she can grow musically. Of course with experiments come failures as well as successes, but I don't think of this as a failure by any stretch. However, I do hope the album has more "torch-singing" in the other songs, as I kind of miss that. With regards the album title: Hopefully, the descendents of Norman Rockwell (who died in 1978) are Lana stans and will let the title stand. It's a title that will really discomfit award shows that nominate it. What gives me hope from the album title, being as unexpected as it is, is that "Lana Del Ray AKA Lizzy Grant" and "May Jailer: Sirens" would make the sequence of released album titles a bit more reasonable, so maybe the probability is higher she (re-)release these works? And maybe NFR will disinhibit her enough to release some unreleased collections (with surprising titles). With this artist it may be her diversity that ultimately sets her apart, which is why I stan the unreleased/suppressed stuff (as extensions of that diversity) and am not turned off by a direction change. As for the song NFR? It will be interesting (for me, at least) to compare it to Ani Difranco's "Napoleon" (which also uses the word "fucking") and Carly Simon's "You're so vain", both classics in the genre of egotistical-artist-diss songs.

Barrie's great. Cold Coffee should have gotten critical attention, and hopefully Psychedelic Soup (when it comes) gets him some. Anyway, in the Nightmareboy thread in the Entertainment forum @@Nightmare Boy Online (who's a fan who promotes Barry via social media) and I were trading transcriptions of what we thought his album lyrics were. So if anyone has any definitive info on the part of them that I'll next quote, it would be of great interest to post about it here. Specifically, at the end of the "hidden track" ending Thunder and ending the album, we disagreed on what we heard, and both of our transcriptions are different from yours. http://lanaboards.com/index.php?/topic/3709-nightmare-boy-barrie-james-oneill/?p=330625 what Nightmare Online hears

The view from overthinking it: The "I'm your man" refrain, which apparently refers to the Leonard Cohn song, is a quintessential song about "love as submission". LC's character in that song is doing whatever it is the significant other would want him to do. I'm referring to the wikipedia page here (and I've listened to the song): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_Your_Man_(Leonard_Cohen_song) refreshingly, Cohen was hit by the critics for this (on the surface, quite stereotypical) Lana-esque song topic. So if *she* is singing "I'm your man" (i.e., it's not a perspective shift), it would seem to be a kind of sarcasm or irony, by virtue of being what she expects "the man" to be, while not being the man. Matters get even more convoluted by the fact that the interview, which seems to ground the meaning of her song, has her explicitly *not* doing what LC's character does in his song (i.e., she is refuting the man and not putting on a "mask" that the significant other desires). So it's kind of like LDR's a double-agent *for feminism* in the espionage sense, but then kind of blows her cover in the song (or is it the interview, idk).

If I understand LDR's current position on pulling out of Meteor, it's because she can't treat her Israeli and Palestinian fans equally on a "tour" to the Mideast. The Palestinians are already on record for saying they'd welcome her if she cancelled Meteor, which, in fact, she did. So the question I have is whether the Israelis have a counter restriction, saying they'll disallow performing in Israel if she performs in Palestine, which isn't even a nationality in my mind, so I wonder where the heck she's thinking of performing. If you Wikipedia State of Palestine it's the West Bank and Gaza strip, which is occupied--in an Apartheid fashion-- by Israel; however, it is Apartheid with a distinct purpose of keeping terrorism out of Israel and/or weaponization out of the occupied regions. She could perform in both Israel proper and in occupied Palestine, but only with the close coordination of the Israelis (for security reasons at least), which I wish the Israelis would actually attempt, as a gesture of good will. However this would have to be with blessing of the Palestinian "government", which quite frankly I don't see them giving. Still if Israelis made the attempt (and failed), that would be on record, or they might even succeed and we'd learn something about the univocality of the Palestinian position with regard to the BDS. BTW- this is what I'm taking to be the explicit BDS goals, or what the "picket line" is all about: https://bdsmovement.net/faqs#collapse16233 It seems pretty one-sided to me as the Palestinians are asking for stuff but not conceding anything to the Israelis. But that's just my opinion. Finally, as an alternative to all my weird-ass speculations, perhaps LDR's just waiting for the Kushner initiative to solve all the problems in the Mideast. A miracle on Trump's watch is, at least, not logically impossible, although come to think of it anything good happening on Trump's watch would be a miracle.

I recommend Wikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus for general information. Seems pretty fair and balance, and there are links to other such articles. A one-state solution would seem required for providing Israel security. An autonomous Palestine always carries with it the (high) probability of Arab-alliances providing offensive weapons to Palestine to harm Israel (leading Israel to just re-conquer the region and no progress being made). Historically, this has happened in the recent past as when the Gaza strip was weaponized in 2014 via rocket launchers. If anybody is going to take a leadership role in a one-state solution (now), it's going to have to be the Israelis. They are the de facto power in the region and are skilled in making their own people prosperous (yeah, they really did that). I am an Israeli sympathizer, even though I dislike what Israel, as well as Arab countries, are doing/have done to sustain the conflict. Had the Israelis used the soon-to-be-expelled Palestinian population as a bargaining chip in 1948 (promising to integrate them in a constitutionally protected, democratic society, protecting freedom of religion and other human rights) AND had the whole Arab world, or even a significant part of it, seriously entertained the idea of Israel existing, we could have had a viable single-state solution from the get go. Don't think it would have been called Israel, but maybe IPPI. For balance, here are some interesting artists on LDR's side with respect to playing Israel. https://www.spin.com/2017/07/thom-yorke-radiohead-israel-concert-statement/ https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/nick-cave-isreal-show-palestine-boycott-aparthied-bds-roger-waters-thom-yorke-latest-a8065366.html https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/morrissey-s-new-album-those-who-insult-israel-are-jealous-1.5464774

I'd like the explanation too, but she scheduled before and canceled owing to instability in the region. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/lana-del-rey-cancels-live-show-in-israel-9659891.html

While it might have been (and possibly still is) innovative (and interesting) that one singer should use another singer as a kind of reverb (and LDR is a very interesting choice for that, given she likes reverb a lot), it might have been nicer to switch roles on occasion just to highlight the fact that they were doing something innovative. In the current case, you have to say "featuring Lana Del Rey", to sort of let people know she's really in the song (not quite as bad as a "Where's Waldo", but similar). However, I do appreciate the fact that Catpower made it a lead single, which is a kind of wonderful statement about her respect for LDR. Maybe Chan will be on LDR6?

Maybe Chan will be on LDR6 (playing guitar on Disco)? LDR's conception of a (singing) feature tends to give a lot more than she ever gets from other people's conception of a singing feature with respect to her. LFL is sort of underrated for that.

Rachmaninoff had his First Symphony (the conductor was drunk), Stravinsky had his Rite of Spring (the critics were not ready), and Lana Del Rey will most likely have Blue Jeans SNL (for the same reason as Igor). The BJ performance is very dynamic and I have watched it many times with enjoyment. She has said in one interview (my memory is the only receipt) that it was "true to form", so I'm inclined to agree with suggestions above that its form, at that moment in time, was intentional (maybe Lizzie's last stand?). It was also her second performance of the night, and she would have been (and seemed to me) more relaxed.

The issue for me is a personal one from my using free-spotify and appreciating a possible objective (for them) of trying to make commercial music-streaming viable like add-supported TV (which also has paid subscription services sometimes). I'm hoping the chart-stuff evolves (or at least something evolves) like the Nielsen Ratings for TV, which is also "for business", but which is supposed to be objective and non-manipulative as well. I'm waiting for spotify to voice an opinion on what went down with BB**; however, if spotify pays their artists the same per-stream under the free as paid-subscription tier (which is possibly what they do), then I would just have to conclude BB is provoking a bias in artists against add-supported streaming for greed-related reasons. I mean it's their chart they can do what they like, but they're giving me reasons to discount their chart. **TBH-- I don't know if spotify is pro or con. There are complicated issues of money-incentive on all sides. While the article you cited above suggested (to me) an even split on the amount of paid/commercial-supported streams for spotify. The article below says 91% of spotify revenues (2018) comes from the paid tier, but that isn't saying 91% of the streams are from the paid tier. http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2018/05/full-stream-ahead-spotify-q1-2018-mark-mulligan.html

While I understand some wanting their LDR pure and uncut, I do think you're missing the point if you're not comparing her features to other artists' features. How well do her features do against other artists you happen to like and that have features? To my mind she did really well. Her choice was really diverse, ranging from superstars>she (who are nevertheless in her personal/professional history), to old-guard icons, to (important) rapper friends (i.e., how can one forget the National Anthem video?), to a talented indie artist (with a huge connection to the old guard). She got Stevie through Rick, most probably, but the others were by her initiative or personal history. The only thing unfortunate about the Lust for Life song is that we don't get the original version (which Rick at least likes). It would be nice to get that as a single (maybe with the Weeknd and LDR having separately-sung versions, as an interesting flip on the re-mix idea).

The fact they did it as a trio says it all. It was intended as Alessandro's show, or a "fashion video" with his friends supporting. As for her seeming "high", I'm attributing that to an emotional high. This can also make you seem loopy (although tbh I don't see much of that going on, although she *did* thank the state of California in her LFL liner notes). However if she is shy, she would certainly be very happy exercising her model cred with Jared in such a high-profile but low-stress situation. On another topic does MSN (Megan Riedlinger) have something against Lana? The evidence is not finding her in their hit or misses review, which I think is their loss (mainly in terms of their credibility as reporters, or maybe they couldn't figure out if she were a hit or miss?). https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/celebrity/fashion-hits-and-misses-from-the-2018-met-gala/ss-AAwVnLB?li=BBnb7Kz BTW Jared was noticed in their review: https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/celebrity/fashion-hits-and-misses-from-the-2018-met-gala/ss-AAwVnLB?li=BBnb7Kz#image=58 My mistake they got her here: https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/celebrity/2018-met-gala-see-all-the-stars-on-the-red-carpet/ss-AAwUwye?li=BBnb7Kz#image=60

In a paid streaming service you see no adds and in a free one you see adds (or is this not true?); so it's always been ambiguous to me whether an artist streamed, add-supportedly, makes less money than when streamed in a paid service. However, unless Billboard says specifically, "artists get paid more in paid-subscription services than commercial ones, and the weighting is *exactly* proportional to that", their actions look highly manipulative, as in trying to get artists to favor paid-subscription services over the commercial-supported ones. Therefore, I am highly suspicious of BB's motives for these changes (e.g., bribary by the paid services?). LDR will be impacted negatively only in specific situations. However, if she streams well in paid services, she (and all others) will have a slight overall benefit (relative to the old method of counting) in terms of getting to gold/platinum certs. However, it's a negative impact for spotify on the basis of this article (and my assumptions for it, as the article is confusing AF on how much spotify is add-driven and how much is premium, and why combine apple and spotify together at times? wtf): old method: X/1500 is the number of albums "sold" given X streamsnew method: .48X/1250 + .52X/3750 (given ".48 of the combined spotify streams are premium and .52 add-supported"). Take X to be 1000000 streams, then the number albums sold in spotify is:old: 666.666 (a good number, lol) new: 480000/1250 + 520000/3750 = 384 +138.666 = 522.666 To me the old method was plenty good. I mean, even if their stream weightings are based strictly on artist revenue (and therefore rational), don't we already know that album-sales counts are not strictly based on revenue? I mean if LDR sells 2 copies of BTD digital at $5 is this counted just as much as another artist selling 1 digital album at $10? My belief is that she gets credit for 2 sales relative to the other artist's single sale, and if this is so, it makes me suspect BB's motivations for the changes even more.

TBH, I don't think most of her unreleased songs are that sad but here are some masterpieces, imo: Hollywood's Dead (about artists she likes having died too early). Fordham Road (not really sad, because it's actually an anti-suicide-by-bad-judgment song; however, the fact that she covered Chelsea Hotel #2 (Leonard Cohen), while not releasing Fordham Road does make me sad). Last Girl on Earth (surrealistically/hyperbolically sad). Disco (philosophically sad -- imo, theistic-pessimistic outlook combined with the absence of meaningful love relations). The Ocean (also philosophically sad -- demo of kill kill). Hawaiian Tropic (tragic sad) Queen of Disaster (funny sad) TV in Black and White (metaphoric sad) Making Out, non-autotuned version (nymphomaniacally/hedonistically sad) and a lot of May Jailer songs are episodically sad (e.g., bad disease/try tonight/out with a bang/pride/for k). Like Wayamaya (though not necessarily similar, but as you say "exotic and laid down"): On Our Way (probably the closest to W, imo)Maha Maha (Disney-princess song envisioned by LDR and Princess Superstar) Strange Love (first demo version, which reminds me somewhat of Artpop, the song, by Lady Gaga) Put Your Lips Together (reminded me of a horny Bjork. Good luck finding it {:^( ). Trash: Live >>>>>>> studio (despite the fact studio is better sung, technically. Both on youtube!) Anal Appendix: Riverside originates with Barrie-James O'neill and Some Things Last a Long Time with Daniel Johnston.

Not quite as lucrative as the Nobel, but DAMN! https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2018/04/16/602948758/kendrick-lamars-damn-wins-historic-pulitzer-prize-in-music (I mean that in a good way).

I guess the demo-acapella lyrics are neutral on this (?), but the low-hanging-fruit interpretation for this song has, for me at least, always been a John-Lennon mourning song, where Sean represents John's family and Lana represents John's fans. So I've always wanted the presented lyric -- where she breaks the 4th wall -- to be "Isn't life *strong* I said, now that I'm singing with Sean", which forces that interpretation quite a bit. However, I've also noticed that she doesn't like to force interpretations all that much, or perhaps likes having a trashy/obvious interpretation occluding a more profound/unexpected one (e.g., the songs Religion and Ultraviolence). #impOfPerverse or #queenOfFreeWill

The award, undoubtedly important, seems kind of ad hoc and recent, in the sense of the earliest award being 2010 and the most recent in 2016 (i.e. not regularly awarded). With the exception of Peter Frampton the past recipients are unknown to me! Link is from ascap webspace. https://www.ascap.com/news-events/awards/ascap-global-impact-award I also looked for the wording as to why the award is being given (aka the LDR "impact") and found this, which looks to be a press release from ascap. Look for "ASCAP President Paul Williams commented:" 4 paras down for LDR comment. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/international-superstar-lana-del-rey-to-receive-ascap-global-impact-award-grammy-winning-rockers-portugal-the-man-to-be-honored-with-ascap-vanguard-award-at-2018-ascap-pop-music-awards-on-april-23rd-300620404.html While I liked the wording quite a bit, it could have been improved quite a bit (imo) by making an explicit reference to her unreleased/suppressed period as well as what people will understand being referenced, namely, her BTD and later work. I don't want the award to "go to her head" in the sense of making her think that her released period is necessarily more valid than her unreleased period, as the two periods overlap quite a bit in song quality (again imo). So when the guy said "where endless possibility is the only rule", I specifically thought that his description could have been substantially strengthened by referencing her unreleased/suppressed stuff (assuming he knew about it). BTW, here's a list of the Vanguard award recipients. https://www.ascap.com/news-events/awards/vanguard-award

To me it seems like Radiohead is intentionally milking the legal system to make some kind of abstract point, and LDR's song (with its chord progression) was in the wrong place at the wrong time. In other words, if this isn't just a label-reflex action, and does indeed reflect some kind of personal meaning for Radiohead, its meaning *might* be "hey we got sued for no reason, when you really take the trouble to consider it, so we're just going to do the same thing to demonstrate how easy it is-- doing unto others as they did unto us. If you don't like the result of this exercise, then change the law". So if they win (100%), they could disavow the result and cede the rights back to LDR. (I mean it could happen; we're talking about a specific hypothesis where they think their Hollies plagiarism suit was bogus and want to convince others of that. Of course, I understand that this hypothesis could be false.) More interestingly if they lose (0%), might they not re-litigate the Hollies (or the songwriters') suit? Don't know enough about law to know, but can't precedents sometimes be overruled in later litigation? BTW, Air that I Breath and Creep seem like really different songs, imo, and I do not care about the chord progression. However, RH being sued by ATIB's writers was complicated by RH actually quoting an ATIB *verse melody* in the bridge of Creep (methinks this is the case), so it's not like RH can say they weren't at all "inspired" by the song. I.E. they do a postmodern reference to it. LDR says she wasn't inspired by Creep, but I think she should at least say (as it's the crux of her case?), that chords like the ones in Creep were useful to fleshing out the song, but she thought that such chords were in the public domain. Finally there's the 100% thingey, and why RH demands this, and thereby seemingly demands to go to court. It can't be because the songs are 100% the same, because, LOL, they are not. It could be a punitive amount designed to punish crossing a line somebody feels shouldn't be crossed, in order to discourage others from crossing it. This is a 180 degrees counter-hypothesis to the hypothesis I gave above (oh well). However, as others have brought up, using the chord progression (uncredited) doesn't seem like something you could punish somebody too severely for, given using the same chords is something you can legally do (or can you?). At any rate, shouldn't *the limit* on how much LDR pay up be exactly how much the songwriters of ATIB got from RH?

Two advices: 1) If you're interested in lyrics-specific interpretation, ask the question in the lyrics specific thread. It's not that it's off-topic, it's just that whatever conversation gets started about it will get buried in other conversations. Also it's actually a good thing to ask in that thread. 2) Assuming you've already read the (TLDR) Wikipedia on Aleister Crowley (and I do think she's referring to him), it should be easy to think up reasons she might be interested in him. Definitely at least skim that. For one thing, Crowley believed in "magick", and so he fits well within the initial promo of the album (i.e., LDR as the witch/ghost). As I actually enjoy being buried (aka, I live in a hole in the ground), here's a response: As people like Mark Dice gain popularity from verbally abusing artists (e.g., LDR, Kesha, Jay-Z) in youtube "discussions" on "illuminati agendas" in pop, LDR wishes to give people like that "blue balls" by putting an explicit reference to somebody extremely illuminati-flavored (as Crowley is), while sort of renouncing him at the same time. That way Dice (or people like him) can't make snotty comments about her trying to subconsciously corrupt people over to the illuminati agenda (whatever that is).

Here's a good article about how it went down: http://montrealgazette.com/entertainment/music/concert-review-stars-shine-in-fast-paced-touching-leonard-cohen-tribute LDR's was not the most extroverted performance, and that's probably not surprising, but though her role was very understated, I think it was important and just right for her. The repeat performers tended to be closer to peers of the late Cohen. As regards her (not) dressing, I see her doing this to match to Adam's attire (I think everyone was also dressed in black), as well as keep things focused on Leonard.

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.