evilentity

I wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.

CONTINUED Nice work LanaBoarders. The inspiration behind the Detroit reference in "Guns and Roses"? Paging Acceptance. Realistic expectations. Mellow. Dare I say it, shades of cool. I'm still somewhat baffled by the fact that her audience is mostly teen and early twenty-something girls and gays. Sometimes I wonder what the demographics would be if BTD hadn't had the hip-hop beats and samples. FIN

CONTINUED I knew it. Get it girl. I like that she owns it. And the fact that she says that she didn't sleep with them in order to get ahead, but is completely honest that she wished they'd helped her nonetheless. It echoes some past statements of hers: It's interesting and refreshing to see her take responsibility for whatever role she played in the dissolution of their relationship. It's big of her to say that. It seemed kind of tactless to me when she was running down Barrie and airing their dirty laundry publicly trumpeting it to the world in past interviews. There's a real self-awareness and maturity here, saying this shit affected me, but with a sense of acceptance and without the usual finger-pointing or blame. She comes across much more sympathetically in this interview. Um, you do realize the alcohol is cooked off, right? Also, yum. CONTINUED AGAIN...

After her reactions in some of her last few interviews, I literally laughed out loud when I read the tagline to the article "Lana Del Rey knows what you think about her. And she’s learned to live with it." But you know what? After reading this, I've concluded it's apt. This is not only a great interview, but she comes across extremely well in it. She seems very open and honest. There's just a real maturity and levelheadedness here that she hasn't displayed in some of her other recent interviews. (See @@SitarHero, I told you I can be positive!) I love this. What a great metaphor for her. That kind of luxe just ain't for us @@butterflies Last time I thought maybe she was just spinning a yarn about this, but here she is again saying it was with a label head and lasted for seven years and there's a lot of specific detail. (He had a family with kids!) How early do we think this could have started? Is she saying she was "24, 25" when it ended? That MPG inspiration. Dissing her bestest friend tho. Ha! This is great! I love that Emile signed his own death sentence. The irony is delicious. Organizing your tour schedule around your smoking habit. Classic. It's not a crisis of confidence, it's not. She is confident. She is. Dan gave it back to her. It would be interesting to hear her demos, but I have a hard time imagining a lot of the songs on UV in a folk style and I'm happy with the results, so I think it's extremely premature to be hating on Dan. That said, I would love a return to her folk/anti-folk roots on a future album. TO BE CONTINUED... Fucking quote limits.

This specifically mentions New York City, which fits the theory it's about Atlantic Group. But I find the word "guru" interesting. Translations of some of the other interviews where she talked about this used that word, but I was curious to see if that word would show up in an English language interview. I'll post more of my thoughts about that later. In addition to metaphysics in the Aristotelian philosophical sense, Lana also seems to be interested in the metaphysical in the sort of New Age, spiritual, eastern mysticism sense. (Note her field trip to a psychic with her Rolling Stone interviewer.) During her early career in NYC, a number of people around her seem to have been into these types of things as well. On his blogger profile, Tags from Lizzy Grant and the Phenomena lists things like qi and energy healing under his interests, and David Nichtern, founder of 5 Points Records, is a prominent Buddhist teacher. In fact, he founded a sister label, Dharma Moon, dedicated to producing music for meditation and yoga. His son Ethan is also a prominent Buddhist teacher and author. In light of that, I thought these Facebook posts of hers were interesting:

I don't think there's any particular reason to think "Trans Am" (if it's even a song) is a "Guns and Roses" demo. "Trans Am" was written in a different notebook.

Do we really need a separate thread in the news section every time she adds an album track to her setlist?

Alice sent me a free copy of her album. Contrary to my expectations, she's listed in the credits as "Backing Vox: Lana Del Rey". That reminds me. I was going to post some scans but never got around to it.

Yeah, I asked @@Madrigal to do it for me over a year ago because my Twitter account was still protected at the time and it looks like other people have tried as well. Doesn't look like anyone's had a response.

Early profiles before she was famous got her age right. It wasn't until she started doing press in the wake of the viral success of "Video Games" that her age was revised down a year, in some cases two years, which suggests management involvement to me. In and of itself it isn't necessarily. But it just seems like a stupid thing to do nowadays when so much information is online and it can be easily verified. She's really lucky this didn't emerge during the height of the falsely premised label creation backlash. It would have just added fuel to the fire and could have really come back to bite her. Although the media got a lot of things wrong about her, this was one of a number of false things she said about herself. I think there's a certain degree of hypocrisy in her criticizing the media for making things up about her when she was spinning her own fabrications.

C'mon Barrie, leak everything you worked on together as revenge.

I merged your thread into this one since it was a duplicate topic. I think you'll find this helpful: It finally changed on Wikipedia now since the recent Rolling Stone article that said she's actually 29 even though she's usually reported to be a year younger. Methinks someone's been reading this forum.

Which other one are you thinking of?

I'm a dragon, you're a whore

Sure, but what about the choice to recreate the death of a glamorous mythologized figure like JFK who died young? Sure, but I don't think it's really a stretch to read something into her choice to represent that with death.

Also, how is A$AP Rocky as JFK being assassinated a stretch? And I don't think their scattered inclusion in this list really captures the impression she created by the fact that someone dies in almost all her BTD-era videos. I mean, it was becoming a cliché and a joke within the fanbase. Nah, it's not just that. She's talked about death in interviews frequently for a long time. Sometimes as a result of being asked about it, but often brought up by herself or in response to generic questions like what is X song about.

A few weeks ago I had a really long response written to these posts, but my computer crashed and then I forgot to come back to this. The short version is that while it's maybe not the dominant theme (although I think there's enough evidence that one could argue that it is, though I'm not sure I necessarily would), it's definitely a very dominant theme in her work, to an extent that's atypical, and therefore notable and naturally provokes these sorts of questions. Many of her songs actually are literally about death, but even when she's not singing about death and singing about other things, she's still preoccupied with death, constantly reaching for death metaphors. To @@slang, I was speaking about death imagery generally, but there actually is a lot of self-death (i.e. suicide) references in her work too. And I read "Hollywood's Dead" completely differently. If anything it's the urtext of Lana's glamorization of death! But don't just take my word on the prevalence of the theme of death in Lana's music. Listen to Jon Pareles, whose NYT profile Lana praised glowingly, in this podcast beginning around 7:20.

I'd put this differently. "For K Part 2" is a real title, which implies that a Part 1 may exist. If it does, we don't actually know which track Part 1 is. The song that leaked as part of Sirens (the track names of which were all made up) as "For K" was leaked as part of Quiet Now as "Drive By". I would like to see more receipts before concluding that the name "Drive By" was not made up. Even still, it's quite possible "For K" may have been an alternate title given the "K is a friend of mine" lyric. Some people also speculate that the song off Sirens leaked as "Pretty Baby" could be "For K Part 1" due to the repetition of the phrase "Pretty Baby" in both songs, but I consider this highly speculative.

It's hardly psychoanalyzing to observe that in general fans' love of their favorite artist can get in the way of their objectitivity. (Would you disagree with that?) Aside from saying the pot was calling the kettle black when @@SitarHero first lobbed an accusation of bias against me, I took pains not to accuse anyone specifically of this bias or ascribe this motivation to any specific person. In fact, I specifically exempted you from this particular criticism. There's a big difference between that and saying, well, you specifically must think this or must not think that because you're X personality type. That said, it's not necessary to PM me about it. I'm not really that offended. It should be obvious I have pretty thick skin. As an INTJ/INTP, I'm not threated by conflict or criticism. This is really the crux of it for me. I don't think she's doing this. And I don't think the journalists are doing anything bad enough to warrant the way she's treating them. Not that they can't handle it, they're professionals. But that in itself isn't an excuse for the way she's behaving towards them. Naturally, those of you who think the journalists are doing something wrong may judge her behavior differently, but I don't think they are, and I still don't think it would excuse it if they were. Yes and no. A couple of the recent ones have been some of her worst, but there's been a number of interviews over the years that she cut short or shut down in because she got pissy. The "boring" comment was just an extremely petty cheap shot and reflects really poorly on her. And the comments about "masked as a fan", "hiding sinister ambitions and angles", and "calculated" make her sound completely paranoid. Yes, I think she acted really shitty. This is also a good opportunity to point out something else I've noticed for a long time that I don't think I've mentioned before. Notice she said "masked as a fan". In several of those interviews she got pissy in she interrupted the interviewer to ask them if they liked her music, as if liking her music or being a fan of hers should be a prerequisite for interviewing her or a litmus test for fair coverage. It suggests she has unrealistic expectations of what an interview should be, a misunderstanding of the role of journalists, a belief that if the media isn't covering her positively and in just the manner she'd like it isn't covering her fairly. Sorry, Lana, that's what PR people are for, not journalists.

All the things you go on to mention are not at all what I'm talking about. I'm specifically talking about her agreeing to do these interviews in the first place, then rudely overreacting to fair questions provoked by her own music and words, dramatically shutting down interviews, and even attacking her interviewers. It's just atrocious behavior and completely disproportionate to anything the interviewers are doing. If this is the way y'all act, well, then I'm glad I don't know you IRL. It would be one thing if she were reacting this way to the same members of the media that unfairly criticized her in the past. But they're not. In fact this interviewer clearly says those criticisms were wrong. If she expects a fair shake from them she needs to give them a fair shake. It's pretty clear from the article that he was asking this facetiously and that Lana also took it that way. A thought experiment: Put yourselves in the interviewer's shoes for a moment. How many of you really think you could interview her as long as this guy did asking interesting questions without accidentally setting her off that results in something that's interesting to read and isn't just a fawning paean to your goddess? Obviously I couldn't. But I doubt you could either. And I still haven't heard a good answer why she can't just politely demur when something makes her uncomfortable.

Exactly. I don't think she's shown decency towards the journalists that are interviewing her. Accountability for what? These recent interviewers haven't done anything wrong. Absolutely not true. I hear, and remark on, many positive things. Just recently I specifically praised her NYT profile and how well she came across in it. "Put her in her place"? Please. That's an incredibly loaded phrasing carrying connotations (including sexist overtones) far beyond anything I'm trying to convey here. I'm merely saying I see a pattern of behavior in her interviews that I find objectionable and unwarranted and that I'm frankly mystified when others fail to see it or find it off-putting. I never said that you specifically try to "absolve every crazy thing she does" in every case, just that there's a tendency among many on the forum towards doing this and I think it would be misguided to do it in this case. And I don't relish picking on her personality at all. I'd love to read more interviews and not find her behaving appallingly towards her interviewers. I'd love for her to come across well more often so that people don't wrongfully dismiss her. Unfortunately that just hasn't happened very often recently. ...Except that other than her shutting down I thought this was a very good, mostly positive article and that up until that point she came across pretty well. (Aside from the intro which foreshadowed her meltdown.) I think the only reason the story headed in that angle is because of the way she reacted.

This is really insightful, though I disagree with some of it. Perhaps her responses are sensationalized sometimes as the media is wont to do sometimes with everything, but I don't think it's necessary with Lana. Her responses read dramatically because she's being dramatic. But I think you've really hit on something here that I've expressed better in other interview threads. People defending Lana and blaming her interviewers talk about them provoking her with their questions. But their questions are naturally provoked by Lana, her music, her statements, and the controversies they've provoked. I think one side is mostly innocent here, at least in this post-SNL backlash era. It is Lana who initiates the cycle of provocation. LOL. Wow. Seriously? Has this discussion really devolved into psychoanalyzing each other's motives? I think the usefulness of arbitrary personality type designations like Myers-Briggs is vastly overstated, but if I'm going to be psychoanalyzed by my personality type, allow me. I think I can do a much better job. (There's nothing anyone could ever tell me that I don't already know. I know everything about myself. I know why I do what I do. ) From the portrait of an INTP: This is a gross oversimplification of how these traits lead me to my position, but here goes:The interviewer is asking questions that are logical and reasonable. Because they are logical and reasonable, they deserve the courtesy of a reasonable, polite response. However, she is responding emotionally (illogically and unreasonably). Ergo, if anyone is at fault here it is Lana. I dunno. I don't think I buy this. Your "withholding judgment" seems pretty selective to me. Have you really expressed your opinion in over a thousand posts here without making judgments? You wasted no time passing judgment on me as judgmental in this very same post. Also, not necessarily in your case, but sometimes this "withholding judgment" of Lana seems to imply passing judgment on others, like her interviewers, or as you admit yourself, giving Lana a pass indefinitely. And if there's a source of bias in my assessment of LDR's choices, it's from my strong belief in the principle of taking the plank out of your own eye before pointing out the speck in another's, holding yourself to a higher standard than others. This may seem paradoxical since I seem to be pointing out the specks in Lana's eyes. But I extend this principle to group dynamics. To the extent that I identify with Lana as a fan, I hold her accountable for her actions to the extent she is responsible before others. Much as I've held this forum accountable for it's interactions with others outside the forum more than those others, or as I criticize my own country for its faults before finding fault with others. I'm perfectly fine with this point of view. I just disagree with people always absolving Lana of any responsibility and blaming the interviewers. Or denying that she's exhibiting a pattern of behavior here independent of who's interviewing her.

OK, then explain to me how my characterizations of what you said are inaccurate. Really? Where do you think this view of her came from? Am I just imagining her Twitter tantrum over the Guardian interview or the numerous other frosty interviews and interviews she's cut short over the years? No, I'm not sympathetic to the fact that she can't seem to handle being asked expected interview questions or have the grace to just politely say "no comment". If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. Sorry, but this is just excuse-making for shitty behavior. There's also a complete double standard being applied here to Lana and her interviewers. And he/she has the right to print how it went down. My main objection here is I don't think most of you defending her behavior are being objective. If this was an artist you disliked or had never heard of acting this way I don't think most of you would respond the same way. Except perhaps those of you who celebrate any and all confrontational drama even when unjustified because it's "sticking up yourself", a trend in our culture I find really disturbing. Or perhaps those like @@PrettyBaby who think those mean ol' journalists should have to dumb down their interviews to the level of their subject's emotional intelligence no matter how low it is. On another note that pic in the Rob-style Hawaiian shirt is so fucking hot.

In other words you think she should be treated with kid gloves and get special treatment because she complains about it or whatever reason. So you want them to falsely portray her? If you ask me, the solution is for her to either learn to become comfortable with the media or stop giving interviews. Or at least stop taking it out on the interviewers. Seems to me a pretty low bar.

Assuming the worst? I'd say objectively critiquing her responses in interviews based on the information at hand without allowing myself to be prejudiced by the fact that I love her music. If anyone's assuming anything here it's you assuming the worst about her interviewers. Are you really telling me with a straight face (no pun intended) that you don't see a pattern of behavior here? You really think all these different interviewers are uniquely unfair to her and provoke this kind of response from her, but not their other interview subjects?