Vertimus

The problem is that LDR doesn't know how to separate her personal life and feelings from her professional life, and, admittedly, the categories can become extremely blurred in this IG/TW era. But LDR isn't 14, she's not someone just out of the gate. She's in her 30s and has been at this a while now. So many great writers and vocalists were her age or younger when they were at the height of their fame, including women like Janis Joplin, Dianna Ross, Grace Slick, Aretha Franklin, Joni Mitchell, Grace Jones, Carly Simon, Stevie Nicks, Rickie Lee Jones, Linda Ronstadt, Patti Smith, Ann Wilson, Debbie Harry, Kate Bush, Pat Benatar, Siouxsie, Shiela E, Sade, Kim Gordan, Tori Amos, Fiona Apple, Tracy Chapman, Pink, Amy Winehouse, Adele, Lorde, etc. It's up to LDR and her team to figure this process out and not allow themselves to be trolled or easily upset by people like Ann Powers, who seems to believe that she, Powers, sets the pace for women everywhere, especially women in music. That's absurd. What Powers wants is to see, like a facist, is every female vocalist and artist out there towing Powers' political line and and keeping in line, under Powers' control. As I said before, LDR can write and sing about virtually anything she wishes, it's no one's business but her own. If people don't like it, they can turn it off, delete it, not buy or download it. She's letting people successfully make her their punching bag. She's falling for it, like a teenager. Where is the old confidence, the old assurity? I have noticed LDR trying to get 'more in line' with Woke culture, especially on NFR, and to me, that's sad, and part of the reason why she's gone from the 'steely goddess' who was largely above the fray of BTD/P to the limping, sometimes broken, apologist we've seen so often since. And now she's broken again, and in public, and the trolls of the world LOVE IT. The trolls are eagerly feeding off her and would probably love to see nothing more than a LDR suicide.

The sad thing is that, even in the beginning with BTD and Paradise, she seemed to be firmly in control and somewhat 'above it all.' She was a sort of new, fresh pop goddess. That's what attracted me to her. But about the time of the public feud with Lorde, the disastrous SNL appearance and into the early UV period, and ever since, she's seemed scattered, broken, unsure of who she is and what she wants to project as an artist, a woman and an individual. The terrible NFR rollout is part of that, and so is this rant, which seems poorly considered, though I understand what she's attempting to say. She's just not saying it well, not the first, not the second.

LDR has the right to write and sing about anything she wants to at all, and certainly to reflect her own reality and experiences in her art. And other people--all other people--have there right to reject it, love it, not like it, think it's self-destructive, think it's okay, like some tracks and dislike others, believe it's negative for young women to emulate, think she projects a destructive image of womanhood, perceive her as a positive role model, etc.

FG, thank you. I appreciate it. Your ideas also seem like "weird shit" to me sometimes. I don't know what your specific beliefs are in multiple areas, but I think if you knew me well, you'd be surprised to find that I'm not like you appear to currently conceive of me. I know a great deal about Celtic religions and folklore, the British "fairy faith," the work of Ronald Hutton, Cernunnos, contemporary Wicca movements, the work of Margaret Murray, Carlo Ginzburg, W.Y. Evans-Wentz, Yeats and Lady Gregory, Carl Jung and so on. Maybe none of that means anything to you; I don't know. May the forces of the universe grace us all with open-mindedness, broad tolerance, an understanding of individual differences and the ability to not jump to conclusions. V.

Test for Elle.

Your selective outrage is noted. As I said, I'd like to see all the posts where you challenged or commented upon the constant stream of bullies, would-be intimidators and endless trolls---what you're doing is defending them, when I am standing up for myself and reason, and I have been the attackee, not the attacker. You're just throwing yourself in, irresponsibly. The world is hieratical, and thus exclusionary and sometimes elitist. If it weren't, there wouldn't be movie and sports stars, and there wouldn't be moderators here on this board in the first place, who stand in some position above the average member. I don't have a problem with the fact that humans are not identical to one another, that individuals have different and varying degrees of intelligence, talent, skill, good looks, ethical character, discipline, insight, athletic ability, foresight, privilege, access, grace, taste and so on. We may be equal before for the law, but we're not identical in fact. Nothing in nature is, not even 'identical' twins.

And if you say "The Holocaust never happened" or "the Earth is flat," those are NOT subjective perceptions--they're reflections of ignorance at best and stupidity at worst. If you deny the law of gravity or magnetism, those aren't subjective either. mod note: user was warned for this post

So, like the original poster over the issue of the Golden Ratio, you don't want to know the specific context in which certain things were said, you just want to appear, read a few posts, make a judgment call and publicly find my response "offensive and disgusting." You're being irresponsible to yourself and everyone else, which is your business, and choosing ignorance and tunnel vision because it suits your own purposes or mental laziness. You can't stand on legitimate 'higher moral ground' when you haven't bothered to read through the posts involved. There is no "personal" argument or relationship between me and the others who have been involved in the Golden Ratio discussion, nor do I care to engage in such here. So you're wrong about that too. If we're discussing the Milky Way and there's a disagreement, ugly or not, that doesn't make the subject matter the disagreement, the subject remains the Milky Way.

Please keep in mind that, from almost my first post, I HAVE BEEN ON THE RECEIVING END of that kind of language and other forms of aggressive trolling from 40 or more members here, without you or 99.99% of the rest of the '"community" stepping in or speaking up. Got that? Where are all your posts underscoring the constant trolling and bullying of others? Or are you just trying to suck up? Also, sometimes it is just the unvarnished fact that some members are willfully ignorant---they might as well be Flat Earth Believers or Holocaust Deniers, simply because they have decided to spit in the face of anything factual, actual or conventional. " "Einstein's Theory of Relativity--Ha! What a farce!" "President Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth--sure!" "Thanks to technology, we can now see photos of Pluto and Neptune! RIGHT." It's one thing to be uneducated and therefore potentially genuinely ignorant, and it's another thing to have a Neanderthal mentality by choice, and use it aggressively.

Is Einstein's theory of relativity "ridiculous"? Is Newton's theory of gravity "ridiculous"? You are just choosing to be obstinate because you feel the idea of LDR's ear placement not fitting with the Golden Ratio--which is all I said--is a personal outrage to you, because of course, only your feelings and impressions matter, the world doesn't matter, facts and truth don't matter, only your own little perception bubble matters. What you believe and feel is all that matters. So stay ignorant, and all because your own ideas are outraged and you can't handle it except to deny established facts that are backed by hard math. It does matter that Oprah's website features it, among hundreds of others, because some racist here suggested the Golden Ratio was just a Conservative, Old White Male means of Oppressing Women. So you can try to be objective and try to learn something objectively, and then try to apply it objectively, and see if any of it works for you, or you can stay in your burrow with your outrage.

Not trolling. I don’t troll. Click the Oprah link; Google it.

. What does not liking NFR have to do with homophobia? Can you give us a logical argument? There are just hundreds of academic and scholarly, as well as purely informational, articles about the Golden Ratio on Google. Even Oprah.com has one, which I have posted before and will post again below. If you want to be a denier and exist in ignorance, that’s your provincialism. https://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/measuring-facial-perfection-the-golden-ratio

And I knew you were going to come at me the moment I mentioned ‘unreleased tracks,’ because that’s the kind of mindless parochial/provincial idiot you are. The fact is her released tracks represent some of her best material, but a great many of her released tracks, like ‘Ride,’ ‘Old Money,’ ‘American,’ ‘Summertime Sadness,’ ‘Cola,’ ‘Salvatore,’ ‘Swan Song,’ ‘Black Beauty, ‘Yayo’ and a dozen others are greater than 4/5ths or more of NFR.

I’m glad a lot of people here are finding NFR the album to be the bland, half-baked, soggy pancake that it is. It’s third-rate. It’s amazing to me how much style, content, ease and control she had with unreleased tracks like ‘Angels Forever,’ ‘Hollywood,’ ‘JFK,’ ‘Last Girl on Earth’ and ‘Live or Die,’ and yet half or more of NFR is pure crap, just badly written and/or badly produced, and THIS is what she chooses to release. As I told one friend here, with NFR, I am sure my major LDR period is over—it’s become a never-ending process of diminishing returns. I have been listening to tracks by Lord Huron from Vide Noir, like ‘When the Night is Over’ and ‘Emerald Star,’ and they’re vastly more engaging, moving and beautifully produced than the almost-completely flaccid NFR.

I would like her to de-program herself of all PC-ism and the demands and expectations of people like Anne Powers, and THEN just do what she REALLY wants to do. I hope she wants to be genuinely edgy and un-PC again and deliver songs as free from convention and ‘correctness’ as ‘Live or Die.’ All the PC-ism and ‘Wokeness’ has made her music so boring and turgid. I don’t want or need her to project that she’s a ‘caring nurturer.’ I want her to be powerful again, as she was on ‘Cola’ for example, and on ‘Angels Forever’ and ‘Hollywood.’ She can also be sad and troubled as well as the mood strikes her, but NOT a victim. Be free, Lana, be powerful again.

MXDH, for me LDR hasn’t been carefree since Paradise. UV and HM wee definitely not carefree albums to me—she was already inhibiting herself and, IMO, trying to be someone she’s not, or trying to project an inauthentic persona that she thought would make her more credible to the critics who matter. So Marilyn Monroe tried to convince the world she was Meryl Streep. BE may also become pretentious and decide she’s an artiste down the road, but her album was loose, unlabored and unpredictable, unlike the vacuum-packed, badly-written and largely horribly-produced NFR. CG was no classic, but I still can’t believe how LDR and Antonoff ruined it and made it far less than it could have been. They embalmed it. I don’t care for about half of the BE record, but it has LIFE, whereas NFR kissed all the right PC asses and is mummified.

I think the Billie Eilish album has the creative unpredictability, carefree attitude and fun of LDR’s early work, and the production is pristine. ‘I Love You’ is better than everything on NFR, which I still find largely, but not completely, redundant, clunky and flaccid. Billie deserved to win.

I also agree with almost all the points made. Generally, people shy away from chaos and confusion, and NFR had PLENTY. I also think it was a very weak record for the most part (not all).

Thank you, TLM. In fact, generally speaking, considering how much her appearance and style has changed over the last 8 years, I think she’s clearly on the beautiful side, certainly very attractive.

Ignore it. It’s over.

Let’s not. There will just be more attacks. Only certain people are allowed to make analytical remarks about LDR. Sorry if I misunderstood you. Here’s a brief Youtube video explaining the GR: https://youtu.be/6nSfJEDZ_WM Even Oprah, for God’s sake, has a vastly abbreviated article about the GR on her site. But Oprah is a misanthrope, bigot and misogynist, right? https://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/measuring-facial-perfection-the-golden-ratio

And I stand by that if you apply the GR to her entire head and face. But I was only applying it to her ears and their placement on her head. In the Hollywood of the 30s and 40s, the filmmakers, artisans and studio heads would have made sure that she was never filmed with her hair up for that reason, unless her ears were somehow disguised or obscured by a hat or something else. Just as Hollywood artisans cleverly disguised the perceived imperfections of both their male and female stars, whether it was shortness of height, short legs, a long neck, narrow face, stubby arms or whatever. Also, interestingly enough, naturally having the GR standard/symmetry in the face doesn’t guarantee what today we think of as beauty, the greatest example being the Mona Lisa. Is she beautiful by today’s standards? No. But her face has a strange cryptic power, and as it turns out, the source of that power IS the GR.

The Golden Ratio doesn’t only apply to women. It applies to humans, period. It is a beauty-and-proportion formula supported by mathematics and created/rediscovered by Renaissance painters and mathematicians of genius (though many an ancient Greek sculpture knew of it as well). It is not intended to be personal in any manner or insulting to anyone. The ‘perfectly’ proportioned human physique utilizes the same formula, but applied to the human body. So this is not a slag or attack on LDR, nor did I apply the GR to anything but her ears and their placement on her head.

I also agree with that, though for me it was her music—NFR specifically—AND the definite changes in her public persona and presentation of herself. I never said “her ears were too low for her to ever be beautiful.” I commented that she didn’t look very attractive with her hair pulled back because her ears are both large and set low on her head. According to the artistic/mathematical beauty-and-proportion principle of the Golden Ratio, which has been around since the Renaissance, the top of a person’s ear—where it meets the head—should align exactly with the middle of the eye. That’s all I pointed out, that her ears look large and low when her hair is pulled back, and thus she looks awkward, because the placement of her ears violates the Golden Ratio. That doesn’t mean she’s not beautiful or not beautiful in other ways, or every other way. But a couple of people who attack everyone on principle and enjoy being ignorant of course attacked me even though I provided links to pages about the GR, its history and continued use today.