Wilde_child

Honestly I can't recall an artist who was so brutally attacked by media and humiliated as her in recent years. It's definitely enough to make anyone crazy - especially a sensitive person as her. So yes she sounds extremely paranoid sometimes but yes it's understandable 
 
But I agree with @evilentity: the nature of the questions she is often questioned in interviews are definetely provoked by her ( and her work). If you analyze UV you can totally see she got every little bad thing written about  her and turned into songs: she was called anti-feminist then she wrote a song about getting hit and loving it, she was accused of being a label puppet then we got  FMWUTT and MPG as a response, It's like she really transformed herself into this character that people initially thought she was just to piss and confuse them. A normal artist would probably write about other things after experience such a negative response of their work, but Lana decided to go even further in the dark themes and approach them again and explicitly and now she won't take responsibility of her own decision.
 
It's pretty disrespectful to say things like "I don't want to people to hear it, it's none of their business" to people who actually enjoy her music after writing a song with a line like "he hit and it felt like a kiss". It's easier to say stuff like this than admitting your real motivation.

"i ask, perversely, about fucked my way up to the top" 
 
"now you're annoying me" 
__________________________________________
 
so he admits to being "perverse" (whatever that means); we still don't know how he posed the question or what the question actually was... but upon a second skin, i'm thinking he definitely wanted a reaction out of her

She's constantly treated unpolitely by interviewers/reviewers without obvious reasons. I think @@bloodredjam already explained it very good.
'm not talking about lyrics from songs like Cola, Ultraviolence or FMWUTTT, of course she should be prepared to be asked about them, since she published the songs. I don't like her attitude towards questions like this, things like "I don't want them to hear that at all" or blurry statements in order to say nothing at all are annoying.
It may not be professional to leash out at a jounralist, but it is definitly understandable. Of course it's her "fault" on some parts - cause sometimes she doesn't really talks about things like what's behind her lyrics or how she came up with a song, at least not sufficiently and then the journalists have to ask different things - but in the end, I don't see the journalistic performance in asking her about her daddy or with whom she had sex when she was a teenager. At least as long as she isn't singing about things like this on her official records. And questions like the one with the scale from 1 to 10 are just super-unprofessional. Maybe it would be more professional if she just plainly ignored them, however, she is a human being and I can understand her reaction.
 

this is all so painfully true but somehow i don't think she gives a shit? or its like, she alternates between giving too much and too little of a fuck 
 
like she's so selfish and so self-contained that the outside world rarely 'break(s) through [her own inner] world" but occasionally when it does, she flips the fuck out and suddenly cares until she reverts back into her natural state a minute or so later? i legitimately think that's why she seems so fucking crazy. like, where is she today? in lana world or the real world? they're both equally visceral. and she's obviously capable of (and forthcoming about) inhabiting both spaces; its just that you (the interviewer or the fan) are unable to know which one she's in. maybe she wanted the fame but just isn't cut out for the press (on a consistent scale, at least) 
 
doesn't matter, really -- she'll always be polarizing and there will always be people that love her for it (and i think she knows this, too) 

She is into Gainsbourg and Baez. I knew it!
 
Lana is just being Lana. Cut her some slack.

I'm for criticizing an artist (for example I didn't like Lana's attitude and vocals at Glastonbury). 
But I don't understand your wording regarding her actions for which she has to be accountable?! I have to admit that I was drawn to Lana as much as for her music and voice as for the incredible and fascinating bullying that she was subjected online. I read obsessively almost anything about her, but besides some inconsistencies in her interviews I didn't found objective motives behind the strong reactions against her. I think that besides the absurd opinions (not actions or facts) such as she is a corporate puppet made with her daddy's money, or the unbelievably misogynistic opinion that she is just a fame-whore who surgically altered her image and changed her name for fame, there is nothing that is remotely a behavior expressed by her for what she has to be taken accountable by anyone.
 
And still, most of the interviewers are patronizing her which is borderline with mockery. Who the fuck starts an interview with "On a scale of to 1 to 10, how much do you wish you were dead right now?". This is mockery, lack of respect, period. I would kick his ass out in that minute and I'm not a sensitive artist. It's an entitlement feeling, created by the attitude of the media and blogs towards her. Everybody (even fans) feels entitled to criticize her art, behavior etc. regardless of their competence or knowledge of facts. I'm not talking about legitimate opinions about liking her music or not but about the incredibly stupid think-pieces written about her from a moral high ground which are in the most of the cases ridiculous posturings coming from people who doesn't have remotely Lana's artistic talent. The blogs judged her before she even spoke out, she get defensive from the start and all of her interviews were screwed up because of this.
 
You are a fan and a sensible person but even you feel entitled to hold her "accountable" for her actions. What actions?! She put some music out for God sake, she made art as she saw fit, that is all she ever done. Some of her lyrics are not loved by some feminist?! That is an action (creating some controversial lyrics) for what she has to take the patronizing and irreverent questioning from people? I think not. She was right: after having to consecutive successful albums in the US, with music that even the RS acknowledged that is not corporate Top40 BS, having two respectable tours under her belt, you, the interviewer, have to be concerned more with her artistry and accomplishments than dwelling pointlessly on old and personal subjects like SNL or her daddy.

It just occurred to me that the interviewer mentions bob dylan several times in his write-up and I think he's implicitly trying to compare her to him (kind of a notorious asshole, bordering on insanity in his 2012 interview with rolling stone http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/bob-dylan-unleashed-a-wild-ride-on-his-new-lp-and-striking-back-at-critics-20120927.) I don't know if she's fucking with them on purpose like he did, but either way I just don't see it as that big a deal that she says obnoxious things - I think people on the internet are inclined to hate her no matter what she says, and nothing she's ever said has really been that bad

to be fair, we don't know that for sure. she's obviously incredibly intuitive; seemingly in tune with a different wavelength than most. i imagine that she's aware of subtle shifts in energy, microexpressions, etc; all of which fall heavily in line with what @@PrettyBaby was saying about being highly sensitive to social cues and/or feeling overstimulated on a consistent basis. lana said so herself -- people make her feel crazy. i'm sure this interviewer didn't say anything particularly malicious, however, it doesn't mean she couldn't detect some kind of malice in the periphery anyway
 
even if she was correct in her assessment, we'd never know for certain. and what's worse -- neither would she! her meltdown was likely based on a feeling and nothing more. something unwritten and unspoken; essentially untranslatable outside of her own mind. but lack of concrete evidence doesn't have anything to do with the actual truth or the impact of the situation. she'd still be affected by the ~energy or her intuitions nonetheless -- feeling (and appearing) crazy in the process 
 
[and suddenly her interest in metaphysics makes much more sense after typing this all out]

You basically said everything I was thinking but better formulated.
 
It's her non-linear thought process and her insistence on being iconic (whet ever it's concious or not) that makes her the brilliant artist she is, but also makes her come across so badly in interviews. 
 
At this point I have fully accepted that it's always gonna be a mess (and a mess that potentially hurts Lana) but on the other hand I really enjoy getting these glimpse of what is going on in her mind, so I hope she finds some way to give interviews without loosing all interest in staying in show business.

I think Lizzy Grant is probably a good citizen and even humanitarian (who obviously has done charity work and various forms of outreach). I'm saying LDR the artist/project/concept is all about individualistic pleasures and tortures and personal experience above universality, and it's an all encompassing thing that even permeates interviews, stage presence, etc.  So based on what she does as LDR (which is how we experience her), it would be easy to perceive her as totally detached and self-involved.

There's a strong division between her identity as an artist and that as a person though. In that rolling stone interview she clarified her remark that she doesn't feel any responsibility towards others as an artist by saying that she does feel a sense of responsibility as a citizen and a human being. So if you're talking about her as an artist maybe you have a point but I also wouldn't go so far as to claim that an ethos of "extreme selfishness" pervades her entire personality because it doesn't seem to.

I'm an Introvert, too, and I empathize with others, especially those in music/media, as it must be a constant challenge when so much visibility and access, especially now, is demanded of them. Perhaps for that reason, I'm vested in seeing them thrive on their own terms. I do know that introverts are easily misunderstood, and I've no doubt Lana is an introvert (INFP, if we're going to use MBTI). I'm not even saying Lana should or has to change; I personally enjoy that she's created and defends her own little world. 
I'm saying I can identify what the general 'rift' is between her and media, or even her vs. other modern artists. It's less about 'authenticity' and more about why she refuses to play ball like everyone else.
 
Take Grimes, for instance. She's also a pretty eccentric, introverted dreamer type. She too creates her own little worlds. She too seems highly sensitive and highly intuitive. The difference is she's open. She may be naturally shy and self-contained, but she's able to discuss her weaknesses, strengths, and concerns in interviews, she constantly interacts with fans on Tumblr/Twitter, she promotes other people's work, she's very open about her current obsessions and influences, and she takes an active interest in the world around her. That last part is crucial in how people perceive her. In many ways, she's become the poster child for what an alternative pop star should be: innovative, excited about progress and people, eager to share, quirky but relatable. Basically, Grimes isn't afraid to let people see behind the scenes; she's cards face up. She's okay with being a work in progress as an artist and a human being. This is what people empathize with/appreciate nowadays in musicians — someone who seems like a slightly cooler version of themselves; someone who they could possibly be if they worked hard at it. (Gaga preaches this sort of thing, too.) The media likes people like this too because they seem 'normal' and 'unpretentious.' And let's face it: less of a threat.
 
And this is the sort of thing that terrifies and turns off Lana. She idolizes untouchables and wishes to be that way herself. She shows no real curiosity in the world around her, or in other people beyond the few she's put on a pedestal. In a way, she couldn't have come at a worse time — in an age where idols have been discarded and deconstructed, she longs to remystify them, and be one herself. (No wonder she says she feels detached from culture). As Brett Easton Ellis might put it, she's very Empire in a post-Empire age (and by the way, I hate BEE's worldview). At the same time, she's the perfect glamorous and dramatic antithesis to everyone else's boring transparency and normcore attitudes.
 
So, it makes sense that today's journalists, who have gotten used to media-trained pop stars and eagerly clumsy DIY kids, are alarmed by Lana and her layers and veils. No wonder they try to decode her, and no wonder she resents them.
 
I personally enjoy LDR's attempt to restore a defiantly detached individualism at a time when that sort of thing is being vilified as outmoded and dangerous; it's almost punk rock. At the same time, I wonder if there's any way for that to be seen as a positive thing by most people.

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.

Lana resonates with beat and hippie ideals. Those people were not against social connection; they sought social connection on a deeper, more visceral level than the bureaucratic, formal, rationalistic interactions that are common in our modern society. The emotional undercurrents have the power to destroy a social order or transform it into something more living. As you said, it's a two-way street.

If she would shop for a good psychologist instead of a world-renowned clairvoyant, she might find a good one who won't tell her things she already know about herself, but practical everyday life tips, like how not to give a fuck about what other people think because you cannot control what they think and how they perceive things, how to communicate her discomfort, how to assert herself and set her limits regarding what she's comfortable to talk about. In short, how to get out of an uncomfortable situation like a lady.
 
 
 
 
To know if the interviewer was mean spirited when asking those personal questions, we can't really tell. We don't have all the conversation and mostly, we can't hear the voice tone and see his eyes. When you get into personal stuff, you have to be extremely tactful, diplomatic, human. Being able to make people at ease and making them open up is a gift.

This is how Introverts act. After a while, you just need to recharge, especially after being grilled for two days straight.
 

@@evilentity Didn't you say you're borderline INTJ/P? There's no way you're really this judgmental. Why do you insist on playing devil's advocate when it comes to Lana Del Rey? Cynicism, while the opposite of naive idealism, is no more objective; it's just biased in the opposite direction. There is nothing particularly truthful, or brave, in such an approach.
 
Withholding judgment is not the same as defending. It is simply admitting "I don't know," putting a pin in it, and waiting for more information to pass judgment. Waiting forever if necessary; not everything needs to be decided. This is my approach to life in general, and my intent in discussing LDR or anyone else. I'm not saying I'm always successful at avoiding bias, but I do consistently try.
 
If there's a source of bias in my assessment of LDR's choices, it's not from liking her music. It's from identifying intensely with the reactions she inspires in others. The things people say about her often echo criticisms directed at me in my own life, and I'm honestly baffled by many of them. In my case, being "highly sensitive" has less to do with injured feelings or low EI/EQ (though they do factor in), and more to do with a tendency to be overwhelmed sooner than others by certain forms of environmental stimuli. For me, processing social cues is an exhausting task. So when people like me ask to be treated a certain way, it sounds like we're saying we don't want to work as hard as others, when really we're saying we ARE working hard, to the point of fatigue and rapidly diminishing returns. Does this make any sense? (For anyone who's interested in learning how to work/live with the sensitive people they know, I highly recommend "The Highly Sensitive Person" by Elaine Aron.)
 
But this isn't supposed to be about me
 
I don't think this was a terrible job on the interviewer's part. I think he went too far in a few cases, like we all do sometimes, but saying he "triggered her red flags" is intended as a neutral description of what happened, not accusing him of wrongdoing. I'm glad he gave his account of how it went down. (But it is HIS account.) An interview is not a fixed, physical commodity. It is an interaction between people, colored by the personalities of each, and that is okay. I'm not trying to pronounce judgment on one party. I'm trying to leave open the possibility that even in a situation of conflict, NEITHER party is necessarily in "the wrong."

I don't think the job of a journalist is to praise the person he/she is portraying to the skies, however, in many recent interwievs, the interwievers keep provocating her for no obvious reason. And of course a journalist will/has to print down how the interwiev was. However, no matter which artist is interiweved, i don't see the reason behind some of his questions apart from upsetting her. The other ones were just the same old questions all over again. So many interesting things you could ask her .. Questioning her is one thing, but trying to make her look like a fool is just boring, childish and has nothing to do with serious journalism. So I don't see how this interwiev is supposed to be a good portrayal ... Haven't actually seen a good one. there are the admiring ones, and the bashing ones and then there are these super-provocating-without-any-point ones. The latter "genre" applies to this RS interview.
 
"I find the nature of the questions difficult. 'Cause it's not like I'm a rock band and you're asking how everything got made and what it's like touring in arenas and what are the girls like. It's about my father. It's about my mental health. It's fucking personal." sums it up very well.

i think people are still unsure of whether or not she's actually as fragile and insecure as she often (willfully) portrays herself to be -- so they poke and prod at her supposed tender areas because they're attempting to provoke and/or analyze certain reactions that are either expected or contradictory to what they already think 
 
'considerable glamour', brains, beauty, and a seeming lack of inhibition -- what does this woman have to be so insecure about? the questions are so personal because there will always be that question of ~authenticity, regardless of what she says or does
 
people just don't understand that most if not all of the characteristic attributes they (attempt to) impose on her are likely to be true and simultaneously untrue 

I think she did really well in this interview, at worst coming off as someone who says odd things or just speaks her mind (no news there). At 7 hours maybe outtakes will be published later. Any references to leaks in interviews are really important to me. Half of these seemed instigated by the interviewer; half by LDR. The problem with the leaks/unreleased is that you don't really know LDR without knowing them, which raises an interesting conumdrum if in fact she thinks of them as a private expressions. But that's too simplistic an interpretation. Trash Magic (one of the leaks LDR mentions), has one of her best early live performances on youtube. It is hardly private now and was hardly private when she gave the performance. I just wish there would be an interview more exclusively about the leaks/unreleased and AKA and what their future and their status is for her. At least, if she evaded that topic, there'd would be more talk about her future projects (which is *woefully* lacking here).
 
Most inspiring thing said: After talking about "losing her car", she reveals that the desire to become a singer is what motivated her to cure her alcoholism, but I don't suppose there's going to be very many Internet echoes of "Music sobers up LDR", like there were for the "I wish I were dead" or "feminism is uninteresting".
 
The end meltdown is her best statement about what bugs her about the media and should gain her sympathy. I understand LDR getting especially frosty about the idea that it's her lack of confidence wrt the media as opposed to a lack of respect from the media that is the root cause (I mean she just said it and they just forgot it). 

It is endlessly fascinating to me how a sensitive person can simply stand up for herself and refuse to play the diplomacy game, and get called a bitch for it.
 
Apparently there is pressure in some form for Lana to do interviews. I say good for her for knowing to call it quits this time. (After, what, seven hours of interview time the day before?)
 
Yes, indeed there is a place for treating different people differently, and treating more-sensitive people with greater sensitivity. It's called emotional intelligence, and anyone who works with people would do well to at least consider it in their approach. (I don't usually extoll the virtues of EI because I think it gets overemphasized these days compared to other forms of intelligence... But completely ignoring it is just as ridiculous.)
 
Whether the established players like it or not, Lana is going to have to find her own approach to the game. If a journalist triggers her red flags, then she has the right to enforce her boundaries by ending the interview. (He even says she told him it wasn't about him. That's a conciliatory move. Artless? Maybe. Hissy fit? Hardly.)

I think it's the job of a journalist to be adaptable to their subjects and not succumb to such press bait by willfully upsetting their subject. Like damn how edgy of him to specifically detail the pitfalls of this interview when he clearly saw how uncomfortable that very aspect of fame--i.e., interviewers presenting her in a way she's not okay with--made her. The pattern of behavior you're observing seems to be a chain reaction of her portrayal in the media upsetting her, leading to more questions about this uncomfortable topic and an all around distrust of interviewers, rather than her "throwing a hissy fit at interviewers." If you ask me, the solution is not to keep portraying her like someone excessively uncomfortable with media! It's a really snakey move, stepping outside of the actual profile and describing all the details that make her sound psychotic without any context. So yes I believe him very capable of pushing her over her limit.

Scans (by https://twitter.com/TROPICOCUNT):
 

 

 

 

 

How the hell can some of you not like The Other Woman?... It's flawless!!

We weren't in that room. I really don't believe the question that undid the whole thing was as innocent as the interviewer makes it seem.