YUNGATA

this.
 

Yep, it's that time of week again! (Actually, we're rather overdue, but I bet TrailerParkDarling has enjoyed her several weeks in the homepage spotlight.) I'm happy to present our newest Member of the Week, myriiiam! Hers was one of the closest races we've had so far in the forum, but in the end she won. Read her interview, bask in her glory, listen to her song and weep...Her answers are thoughtful and I, for one, am glad she shared with us!
 
 

Member of the Week: myriiiam!


 
 
 
 
 
Congrats, myriiiam, and thanks for being an awesome member! I think all your voters would agree

I really like this part in Never Let Me Go
 
I remember when I saw you for the first time,
You were laughing,
Sparking like a new dime,
I came over,
"Hello, can you be mine?"

#DOPE #SWAG #BASED #FRESH2DEATH

#DOPE #SWAG #BASED #FRESH2DEATH

lol ok yall hers myy costum 4 lanawen. im l0lita from tha hood! juss like lana!
 
peep myy cute grafix, ya dig?
 

 
lol lil lolita finna get high then fuqq sum old homiez! rofl!!
 

 
lol look @ dat babyy! sum trill shit! lol
 
k yall vote 4 me!!! lol finna win dis contest! liek butons rite thur!!!!!!!!!11!!! ---------->

I'd take nothing. My mum and I used to play this game when I was 5 and I used to say, "my toys, of course". But she said the truly brave would take nothing because they're not afraid to lose everything. So yeah, nothing.

GODS & MONSTERS
 
Living in the garden of Evil
Looking to get fucked hard
 
'Nuff said.

I like her cheeky smiles

I'd be more interested to hear what kind of bra lana wears because there are definitely shots were she looks a little more boobacious than that. Anyway, small boob sisters gotta stick together yo.

. . . and I WEEYL. . . the night time is a-aaAaalmost ours

Oh man, I'm really weird about this.
 
 
 
I'll stop there.

fixed it for you.

I love Dum Dum as a song except for the fact it's called Dum Dum. I don't know why that bothers me so much.

You tell me that it was good to be crazy.
See, that song ~connects to me in so many ways. x]
 
And excuse me but I can't help it, I just can't, I know this has been posted,
but this particular B-LDR-MM is currently on loop (again):
 
 

Sometimes when I listen to MDM, I wish in the last chorus Lana sang "One for the money, WHOA OHOHOH!" Like she does in some of the live performances. Not the Whoa after "two for the show tho." I'm picky about it.

OH MY GOD, you guys, WHAT? Where is your mind?! Is that how you've read my idiotic, nonsensical joke? Here was my thought process, let me explain/exonerate myself: So, evilentity says that that CIA parody video he posted is better than Party In The USA and i think, wait, that's not really saying much at all, isn't anything better than Party In The USA? And so the first thing that comes to mind is shit, as in feces. But i thought that was too juvenile and obvious. So then i started thinking of injuries, like, being injured is better than Party In The USA. So then i went on a search for pictures of injuries, starting with skinned knees. But i wasn't really feeling any of the pictures, they were all kind of stupid. Then i realized that i wanted to use a picture that obviously looked like a stock photo. So i do a search using a combination of key words that i figured would yield some cheesy stock images, and sure enough, some come up. And so i thought the band aid one was just too good. And so i went and composed my little stupid post and inserted the picture. Then i took a pause and thought, wait, i'm not even sure what this means, this kind of makes no sense. So then i clicked post. And then you assholes proceeded to show your true colors shdghghdhhsgdffafayopw
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I love singing along to that. I pout my lips and get my sass on.

I did the same thing a few months ago but with swag
1. Born to Swag
2. Swag to the Races
3. Swag Jeans
4. Swag Games
5. Diet Mountain Swag
6. National Swagthem
7. Swag Paradise
8. Radio (swag)
9. Swagmen
10. Million Dollar Swag
11. Summertime Swagness
12. This Is What Makes Us Swag
 
Swag doesn't even feel like a real word to me anymore.

Lucky Ones is a catchy song, I like it.
 
A LDR Musical Moment I enjoy is the slight-high pitched endings Lana adds to the ends of the words "scarlet" and "starlet" in Off to the Races. Not sure if I worded that correctly, but if you listen to the that part I assume you'll catch my drift. It's a minor moment, but when I have my occasional sing-a-longs to it, I tend to raise the pitch of the two words at the ends.

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success: the Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worth of being saved.
 
In a sense the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little attention to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as one can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for free for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply publicize what the music business wants to make money with.
 
Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. And rock critics will study more of rock history and realize who invented what and who simply exploited it commercially.
 
Beatles' "aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll: it replaced syncopated african rhythm with linear western melody, and lusty black attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.
 
Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for a good reason. They could not figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). THat phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Fours'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia". Not to mention later and far greater British musicians. Not to mention the American musicians who created what the Beatles later sold to the masses.
 
The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. - Pierro Scaruffi

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success: the Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worth of being saved.
 
In a sense the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little attention to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as one can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for free for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply publicize what the music business wants to make money with.
 
Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. And rock critics will study more of rock history and realize who invented what and who simply exploited it commercially.
 
Beatles' "aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll: it replaced syncopated african rhythm with linear western melody, and lusty black attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.
 
Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for a good reason. They could not figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). THat phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Fours'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia". Not to mention later and far greater British musicians. Not to mention the American musicians who created what the Beatles later sold to the masses.
 
The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. - Pierro Scaruffi

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success: the Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worth of being saved.
 
In a sense the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little attention to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as one can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for free for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply publicize what the music business wants to make money with.
 
Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. And rock critics will study more of rock history and realize who invented what and who simply exploited it commercially.
 
Beatles' "aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll: it replaced syncopated african rhythm with linear western melody, and lusty black attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.
 
Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for a good reason. They could not figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). THat phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Fours'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia". Not to mention later and far greater British musicians. Not to mention the American musicians who created what the Beatles later sold to the masses.
 
The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. - Pierro Scaruffi

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success: the Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worth of being saved.
 
In a sense the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little attention to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as one can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for free for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply publicize what the music business wants to make money with.
 
Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. And rock critics will study more of rock history and realize who invented what and who simply exploited it commercially.
 
Beatles' "aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll: it replaced syncopated african rhythm with linear western melody, and lusty black attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.
 
Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for a good reason. They could not figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). THat phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Fours'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia". Not to mention later and far greater British musicians. Not to mention the American musicians who created what the Beatles later sold to the masses.
 
The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. - Pierro Scaruffi

Ooh, I've been tempted to make a thread like this for a long time but I thought it'd be critically panned by the forum members.
 
Anyways:
 
-I read the word "Off" on a switch and I thought it said "To the Races".
-I stood to do the pledge of allegiance in school the other day and said, "I Pledge Allegiance to my Dad for teaching me-"
-During an assembly, we all stood to sing the National Anthem and I thought they meant Lana's "National Anthem"
-My dad grabbed a Mountain Dew bottle out of the fridge and I automatically whispered to myself "New York City..."
-My Spanish teacher asked the class about poems and the only poem I knew off the top of my head was Walt Whitman's, "I Sing the Body Electric"
-My Social Studies teacher said, "You can't have your cake and eat it too" - and I thought "Don't tell Lana that."
 
I'll think of more instances in the past as time goes.