longtimeman

@@FormerLanaFan What? Really??? How did you manage to listen to an artist's back catalog of songs, 75% of which are about illicit affairs with men, and be okay with that all this time? You're upset because the female artist of said songs actually admitted publicly that she DID sleep with lots of people? Logic, where art thou?
 
Personally I've always kind of admired women who are so open with their sexuality. There's nothing slutty about it unless you are dishonest and hurting people left and right. If you're horny and wanna get laid, if you're lonely, it's cool that a woman can go and take care of that. Just tell the guy that's what's up. I wish my parents' religion and society hadn't shamed me. I wish I loved my body enough to get it naked with just anyone.
 
There should be more outlets for women to appear the same way men have been sexually portrayed in the media. Women are not little delicate flowers who want only romance and marriage. Sometimes we just wanna get F-ed!

Lana's polyamory (if that is the right word... I think she has used the word "polygamy" but that doesn't seem to fit either) has been making me uncomfortable for awhile now -- but also opening my eyes to what it must be like for people who openly defy conventional mores. And frankly, some conventional mores need defying.
 
I say this as someone who wishes there was more room in our culture for both women and men who wish to pursue celibacy before marriage. I grew up in purity culture; I was raised to see "girls who do" as something Other, and my parents even questioned whether a close female friend of mine was "a good person" upon finding out she was sexually active. I am ashamed to admit I bought into it long enough to wonder how I would relate to my own daughter if she grew up to be someone "believing in sex before marriage."
 
THIS is cultural insanity. THIS is what is mentally unbalanced: pitting "good girls" against "bad girls," friends against friends, even mothers against daughters. This is what should outrage us: shaming women (regardless of their choices) for being embodied as sexual beings, shaming men (and women) for being attracted to them as sexual beings, and passing on plenty of sexual hang-ups to our daughters AND our sons, whether they are people who "do" or "don't."
 
The double standard doesn't work for us anymore, if it ever did. And attempting the pseudo-egalitarian solution of slut-shaming men as well as women doesn't cut it either. The world is becoming more complicated (culturally... sexually... ) and maybe that scares some people. But maybe this is an opportunity to find other ways of encouraging each other to be more loving, respectful, honorable human beings instead of resorting to the implication "just be more like me so I can feel better about you as well as myself." Many of us are not buying it anymore, and for that I am grateful. For my daughter's sake, and for the sake of other people's sons and daughters, I am grateful.
 
LDR is not alone in portraying female sexual empowerment; as others have pointed out, artists like Miley Cyrus are creating space for women to be fully embodied as themselves (for better or worse -- it is possible to see both, and still welcome the greater space). Lana is just more overtly analytical about it. I say we need her voice, even if I personally disagree with hers sometimes. I hope she doesn't suffer remorse for it. I hope she realizes she is on the front lines of something big -- even if she didn't ask for the confrontation, I hope she decides that being true to herself is worth it.

these two statements kind of say it all, don't they? you had a certain idea of who you thought she was, and for you, i'm sure it fulfilled some kind of late-night masturbatory fantasy. now that she's gone and contradicted your [narrowly] wholesome perception of her, you're no longer a fan of her or her music? lmao k 
 
guess that whole lolita thing really holds some power, eh??? *keeping that in mind* thx 
 
edit: men are so fucking weird lmaooooooooooooooooooo

I look up to liberated women who have sex with whomever they want. It is ok. I could never do it coz I am so repressed.
Sexuality is not a dirty thing, it is beautiful. It comes from God. Religion really messed with people's heads making them feel unnaturally sinful. Nothing wrong with a good sweaty fuck if it is not illegal.
Jesus... A woman can screw around and still be a good person, daughter, citizen, whatever.
I can't believe this sexism... I only worry about Lana getting emotionally involved with a jerk and getting hurt.
Hope she gets all the action she needs and is fully satisfied and appreciated as a woman. Get it baby!! Write us more sexy songs.

Sigh. The powers of clairvoyance that some people on this board possess is astounding sometimes. I would have thought we were past the point where sexual behaviour wasn't seen as conflicting with loving being around your family, but apparently we've still got a long way to go, baby. 
 
Here is an alternative explanation for some of the behaviour that doesn't require pretending to have some insight into the mental processes of somebody who you've never met. 
 
Singing, writing, performing, dancing, public relations, mixing with people, taking criticism and being optimistic are all different characteristics or skills. A person can have a few, or all, or none of these, but having one doesn't necessarily mean that you would be expected to have any of the others. To be a pop star, though, you're meant to have all of them, to an extreme degree. Each of us will decide which of them is more important - some people don't think a person should be considered a singer if they can't perform live, others don't care as long as they sound good on record. Some of us don't want to see a singer who can't dance at the same time, others of us don't care. Some of us don't care who a singer treats her fans, others of us really care about how the performer relates to people who like her. But you cannot ascribe a mental iilness to somebody because they are missing a few of these attributes. 
 
Even if Lizzy always wanted to be successful, the fact that there are parts of fame that make her miserable don't make her a hypocrite. They just mean that she couldn't see the future (like most of us can't), and the things that she was looking for in being famous came with a higher price than she expected. It's an age old story, and the only artists who manage to get through it are the ones who find a way to ignore all of the bullshit and focus entirely on the creative process. The rest either burn out or overdose or freak out. I'm hoping that the shift in tone in reporting on Lana - from beautiful puppet to worthwhile songwriter and singer - helps her to make the transition, but at this point, anything can happen. 
 
The Beatles stopped performing live because they couldn't hear themselves on stage, and because nobody cared about what they sounded like. Maybe Lana will decide that the chance to see the smiles on the people in the front row is not worth all of the bullshit, and she'll stop singing live as well. It's 100% true that some of her songs live are better than others, and some of her shows are better than others, and she has a few decisions to make about performing. But from her perspective, the things that she enjoyed doing - that were her way into the industry - had nothing to do with standing in front of 50,000 fans. They were writing, singing and putting together videos, and all of them could be done in a small room with only a few people around. That's an attitude I can relate to.
 
Finally, relationships fall apart for all sorts of reasons, and there is no such thing as the objective truth of why something fucks up. Everybody who has an opinion is either a biased participant, or someone who doesn't know what happened. So when it comes to her time with Barrie and what went wrong, the only reasonable response is to nod and move on, and accept what both of them say about it as their take on it.

Sigh. The powers of clairvoyance that some people on this board possess is astounding sometimes. I would have thought we were past the point where sexual behaviour wasn't seen as conflicting with loving being around your family, but apparently we've still got a long way to go, baby. 
 
Here is an alternative explanation for some of the behaviour that doesn't require pretending to have some insight into the mental processes of somebody who you've never met. 
 
Singing, writing, performing, dancing, public relations, mixing with people, taking criticism and being optimistic are all different characteristics or skills. A person can have a few, or all, or none of these, but having one doesn't necessarily mean that you would be expected to have any of the others. To be a pop star, though, you're meant to have all of them, to an extreme degree. Each of us will decide which of them is more important - some people don't think a person should be considered a singer if they can't perform live, others don't care as long as they sound good on record. Some of us don't want to see a singer who can't dance at the same time, others of us don't care. Some of us don't care who a singer treats her fans, others of us really care about how the performer relates to people who like her. But you cannot ascribe a mental iilness to somebody because they are missing a few of these attributes. 
 
Even if Lizzy always wanted to be successful, the fact that there are parts of fame that make her miserable don't make her a hypocrite. They just mean that she couldn't see the future (like most of us can't), and the things that she was looking for in being famous came with a higher price than she expected. It's an age old story, and the only artists who manage to get through it are the ones who find a way to ignore all of the bullshit and focus entirely on the creative process. The rest either burn out or overdose or freak out. I'm hoping that the shift in tone in reporting on Lana - from beautiful puppet to worthwhile songwriter and singer - helps her to make the transition, but at this point, anything can happen. 
 
The Beatles stopped performing live because they couldn't hear themselves on stage, and because nobody cared about what they sounded like. Maybe Lana will decide that the chance to see the smiles on the people in the front row is not worth all of the bullshit, and she'll stop singing live as well. It's 100% true that some of her songs live are better than others, and some of her shows are better than others, and she has a few decisions to make about performing. But from her perspective, the things that she enjoyed doing - that were her way into the industry - had nothing to do with standing in front of 50,000 fans. They were writing, singing and putting together videos, and all of them could be done in a small room with only a few people around. That's an attitude I can relate to.
 
Finally, relationships fall apart for all sorts of reasons, and there is no such thing as the objective truth of why something fucks up. Everybody who has an opinion is either a biased participant, or someone who doesn't know what happened. So when it comes to her time with Barrie and what went wrong, the only reasonable response is to nod and move on, and accept what both of them say about it as their take on it.

Sigh. The powers of clairvoyance that some people on this board possess is astounding sometimes. I would have thought we were past the point where sexual behaviour wasn't seen as conflicting with loving being around your family, but apparently we've still got a long way to go, baby. 
 
Here is an alternative explanation for some of the behaviour that doesn't require pretending to have some insight into the mental processes of somebody who you've never met. 
 
Singing, writing, performing, dancing, public relations, mixing with people, taking criticism and being optimistic are all different characteristics or skills. A person can have a few, or all, or none of these, but having one doesn't necessarily mean that you would be expected to have any of the others. To be a pop star, though, you're meant to have all of them, to an extreme degree. Each of us will decide which of them is more important - some people don't think a person should be considered a singer if they can't perform live, others don't care as long as they sound good on record. Some of us don't want to see a singer who can't dance at the same time, others of us don't care. Some of us don't care who a singer treats her fans, others of us really care about how the performer relates to people who like her. But you cannot ascribe a mental iilness to somebody because they are missing a few of these attributes. 
 
Even if Lizzy always wanted to be successful, the fact that there are parts of fame that make her miserable don't make her a hypocrite. They just mean that she couldn't see the future (like most of us can't), and the things that she was looking for in being famous came with a higher price than she expected. It's an age old story, and the only artists who manage to get through it are the ones who find a way to ignore all of the bullshit and focus entirely on the creative process. The rest either burn out or overdose or freak out. I'm hoping that the shift in tone in reporting on Lana - from beautiful puppet to worthwhile songwriter and singer - helps her to make the transition, but at this point, anything can happen. 
 
The Beatles stopped performing live because they couldn't hear themselves on stage, and because nobody cared about what they sounded like. Maybe Lana will decide that the chance to see the smiles on the people in the front row is not worth all of the bullshit, and she'll stop singing live as well. It's 100% true that some of her songs live are better than others, and some of her shows are better than others, and she has a few decisions to make about performing. But from her perspective, the things that she enjoyed doing - that were her way into the industry - had nothing to do with standing in front of 50,000 fans. They were writing, singing and putting together videos, and all of them could be done in a small room with only a few people around. That's an attitude I can relate to.
 
Finally, relationships fall apart for all sorts of reasons, and there is no such thing as the objective truth of why something fucks up. Everybody who has an opinion is either a biased participant, or someone who doesn't know what happened. So when it comes to her time with Barrie and what went wrong, the only reasonable response is to nod and move on, and accept what both of them say about it as their take on it.

Sigh. The powers of clairvoyance that some people on this board possess is astounding sometimes. I would have thought we were past the point where sexual behaviour wasn't seen as conflicting with loving being around your family, but apparently we've still got a long way to go, baby. 
 
Here is an alternative explanation for some of the behaviour that doesn't require pretending to have some insight into the mental processes of somebody who you've never met. 
 
Singing, writing, performing, dancing, public relations, mixing with people, taking criticism and being optimistic are all different characteristics or skills. A person can have a few, or all, or none of these, but having one doesn't necessarily mean that you would be expected to have any of the others. To be a pop star, though, you're meant to have all of them, to an extreme degree. Each of us will decide which of them is more important - some people don't think a person should be considered a singer if they can't perform live, others don't care as long as they sound good on record. Some of us don't want to see a singer who can't dance at the same time, others of us don't care. Some of us don't care who a singer treats her fans, others of us really care about how the performer relates to people who like her. But you cannot ascribe a mental iilness to somebody because they are missing a few of these attributes. 
 
Even if Lizzy always wanted to be successful, the fact that there are parts of fame that make her miserable don't make her a hypocrite. They just mean that she couldn't see the future (like most of us can't), and the things that she was looking for in being famous came with a higher price than she expected. It's an age old story, and the only artists who manage to get through it are the ones who find a way to ignore all of the bullshit and focus entirely on the creative process. The rest either burn out or overdose or freak out. I'm hoping that the shift in tone in reporting on Lana - from beautiful puppet to worthwhile songwriter and singer - helps her to make the transition, but at this point, anything can happen. 
 
The Beatles stopped performing live because they couldn't hear themselves on stage, and because nobody cared about what they sounded like. Maybe Lana will decide that the chance to see the smiles on the people in the front row is not worth all of the bullshit, and she'll stop singing live as well. It's 100% true that some of her songs live are better than others, and some of her shows are better than others, and she has a few decisions to make about performing. But from her perspective, the things that she enjoyed doing - that were her way into the industry - had nothing to do with standing in front of 50,000 fans. They were writing, singing and putting together videos, and all of them could be done in a small room with only a few people around. That's an attitude I can relate to.
 
Finally, relationships fall apart for all sorts of reasons, and there is no such thing as the objective truth of why something fucks up. Everybody who has an opinion is either a biased participant, or someone who doesn't know what happened. So when it comes to her time with Barrie and what went wrong, the only reasonable response is to nod and move on, and accept what both of them say about it as their take on it.

Sigh. The powers of clairvoyance that some people on this board possess is astounding sometimes. I would have thought we were past the point where sexual behaviour wasn't seen as conflicting with loving being around your family, but apparently we've still got a long way to go, baby. 
 
Here is an alternative explanation for some of the behaviour that doesn't require pretending to have some insight into the mental processes of somebody who you've never met. 
 
Singing, writing, performing, dancing, public relations, mixing with people, taking criticism and being optimistic are all different characteristics or skills. A person can have a few, or all, or none of these, but having one doesn't necessarily mean that you would be expected to have any of the others. To be a pop star, though, you're meant to have all of them, to an extreme degree. Each of us will decide which of them is more important - some people don't think a person should be considered a singer if they can't perform live, others don't care as long as they sound good on record. Some of us don't want to see a singer who can't dance at the same time, others of us don't care. Some of us don't care who a singer treats her fans, others of us really care about how the performer relates to people who like her. But you cannot ascribe a mental iilness to somebody because they are missing a few of these attributes. 
 
Even if Lizzy always wanted to be successful, the fact that there are parts of fame that make her miserable don't make her a hypocrite. They just mean that she couldn't see the future (like most of us can't), and the things that she was looking for in being famous came with a higher price than she expected. It's an age old story, and the only artists who manage to get through it are the ones who find a way to ignore all of the bullshit and focus entirely on the creative process. The rest either burn out or overdose or freak out. I'm hoping that the shift in tone in reporting on Lana - from beautiful puppet to worthwhile songwriter and singer - helps her to make the transition, but at this point, anything can happen. 
 
The Beatles stopped performing live because they couldn't hear themselves on stage, and because nobody cared about what they sounded like. Maybe Lana will decide that the chance to see the smiles on the people in the front row is not worth all of the bullshit, and she'll stop singing live as well. It's 100% true that some of her songs live are better than others, and some of her shows are better than others, and she has a few decisions to make about performing. But from her perspective, the things that she enjoyed doing - that were her way into the industry - had nothing to do with standing in front of 50,000 fans. They were writing, singing and putting together videos, and all of them could be done in a small room with only a few people around. That's an attitude I can relate to.
 
Finally, relationships fall apart for all sorts of reasons, and there is no such thing as the objective truth of why something fucks up. Everybody who has an opinion is either a biased participant, or someone who doesn't know what happened. So when it comes to her time with Barrie and what went wrong, the only reasonable response is to nod and move on, and accept what both of them say about it as their take on it.

Sigh. The powers of clairvoyance that some people on this board possess is astounding sometimes. I would have thought we were past the point where sexual behaviour wasn't seen as conflicting with loving being around your family, but apparently we've still got a long way to go, baby. 
 
Here is an alternative explanation for some of the behaviour that doesn't require pretending to have some insight into the mental processes of somebody who you've never met. 
 
Singing, writing, performing, dancing, public relations, mixing with people, taking criticism and being optimistic are all different characteristics or skills. A person can have a few, or all, or none of these, but having one doesn't necessarily mean that you would be expected to have any of the others. To be a pop star, though, you're meant to have all of them, to an extreme degree. Each of us will decide which of them is more important - some people don't think a person should be considered a singer if they can't perform live, others don't care as long as they sound good on record. Some of us don't want to see a singer who can't dance at the same time, others of us don't care. Some of us don't care who a singer treats her fans, others of us really care about how the performer relates to people who like her. But you cannot ascribe a mental iilness to somebody because they are missing a few of these attributes. 
 
Even if Lizzy always wanted to be successful, the fact that there are parts of fame that make her miserable don't make her a hypocrite. They just mean that she couldn't see the future (like most of us can't), and the things that she was looking for in being famous came with a higher price than she expected. It's an age old story, and the only artists who manage to get through it are the ones who find a way to ignore all of the bullshit and focus entirely on the creative process. The rest either burn out or overdose or freak out. I'm hoping that the shift in tone in reporting on Lana - from beautiful puppet to worthwhile songwriter and singer - helps her to make the transition, but at this point, anything can happen. 
 
The Beatles stopped performing live because they couldn't hear themselves on stage, and because nobody cared about what they sounded like. Maybe Lana will decide that the chance to see the smiles on the people in the front row is not worth all of the bullshit, and she'll stop singing live as well. It's 100% true that some of her songs live are better than others, and some of her shows are better than others, and she has a few decisions to make about performing. But from her perspective, the things that she enjoyed doing - that were her way into the industry - had nothing to do with standing in front of 50,000 fans. They were writing, singing and putting together videos, and all of them could be done in a small room with only a few people around. That's an attitude I can relate to.
 
Finally, relationships fall apart for all sorts of reasons, and there is no such thing as the objective truth of why something fucks up. Everybody who has an opinion is either a biased participant, or someone who doesn't know what happened. So when it comes to her time with Barrie and what went wrong, the only reasonable response is to nod and move on, and accept what both of them say about it as their take on it.

Sigh. The powers of clairvoyance that some people on this board possess is astounding sometimes. I would have thought we were past the point where sexual behaviour wasn't seen as conflicting with loving being around your family, but apparently we've still got a long way to go, baby. 
 
Here is an alternative explanation for some of the behaviour that doesn't require pretending to have some insight into the mental processes of somebody who you've never met. 
 
Singing, writing, performing, dancing, public relations, mixing with people, taking criticism and being optimistic are all different characteristics or skills. A person can have a few, or all, or none of these, but having one doesn't necessarily mean that you would be expected to have any of the others. To be a pop star, though, you're meant to have all of them, to an extreme degree. Each of us will decide which of them is more important - some people don't think a person should be considered a singer if they can't perform live, others don't care as long as they sound good on record. Some of us don't want to see a singer who can't dance at the same time, others of us don't care. Some of us don't care who a singer treats her fans, others of us really care about how the performer relates to people who like her. But you cannot ascribe a mental iilness to somebody because they are missing a few of these attributes. 
 
Even if Lizzy always wanted to be successful, the fact that there are parts of fame that make her miserable don't make her a hypocrite. They just mean that she couldn't see the future (like most of us can't), and the things that she was looking for in being famous came with a higher price than she expected. It's an age old story, and the only artists who manage to get through it are the ones who find a way to ignore all of the bullshit and focus entirely on the creative process. The rest either burn out or overdose or freak out. I'm hoping that the shift in tone in reporting on Lana - from beautiful puppet to worthwhile songwriter and singer - helps her to make the transition, but at this point, anything can happen. 
 
The Beatles stopped performing live because they couldn't hear themselves on stage, and because nobody cared about what they sounded like. Maybe Lana will decide that the chance to see the smiles on the people in the front row is not worth all of the bullshit, and she'll stop singing live as well. It's 100% true that some of her songs live are better than others, and some of her shows are better than others, and she has a few decisions to make about performing. But from her perspective, the things that she enjoyed doing - that were her way into the industry - had nothing to do with standing in front of 50,000 fans. They were writing, singing and putting together videos, and all of them could be done in a small room with only a few people around. That's an attitude I can relate to.
 
Finally, relationships fall apart for all sorts of reasons, and there is no such thing as the objective truth of why something fucks up. Everybody who has an opinion is either a biased participant, or someone who doesn't know what happened. So when it comes to her time with Barrie and what went wrong, the only reasonable response is to nod and move on, and accept what both of them say about it as their take on it.

Sigh. The powers of clairvoyance that some people on this board possess is astounding sometimes. I would have thought we were past the point where sexual behaviour wasn't seen as conflicting with loving being around your family, but apparently we've still got a long way to go, baby. 
 
Here is an alternative explanation for some of the behaviour that doesn't require pretending to have some insight into the mental processes of somebody who you've never met. 
 
Singing, writing, performing, dancing, public relations, mixing with people, taking criticism and being optimistic are all different characteristics or skills. A person can have a few, or all, or none of these, but having one doesn't necessarily mean that you would be expected to have any of the others. To be a pop star, though, you're meant to have all of them, to an extreme degree. Each of us will decide which of them is more important - some people don't think a person should be considered a singer if they can't perform live, others don't care as long as they sound good on record. Some of us don't want to see a singer who can't dance at the same time, others of us don't care. Some of us don't care who a singer treats her fans, others of us really care about how the performer relates to people who like her. But you cannot ascribe a mental iilness to somebody because they are missing a few of these attributes. 
 
Even if Lizzy always wanted to be successful, the fact that there are parts of fame that make her miserable don't make her a hypocrite. They just mean that she couldn't see the future (like most of us can't), and the things that she was looking for in being famous came with a higher price than she expected. It's an age old story, and the only artists who manage to get through it are the ones who find a way to ignore all of the bullshit and focus entirely on the creative process. The rest either burn out or overdose or freak out. I'm hoping that the shift in tone in reporting on Lana - from beautiful puppet to worthwhile songwriter and singer - helps her to make the transition, but at this point, anything can happen. 
 
The Beatles stopped performing live because they couldn't hear themselves on stage, and because nobody cared about what they sounded like. Maybe Lana will decide that the chance to see the smiles on the people in the front row is not worth all of the bullshit, and she'll stop singing live as well. It's 100% true that some of her songs live are better than others, and some of her shows are better than others, and she has a few decisions to make about performing. But from her perspective, the things that she enjoyed doing - that were her way into the industry - had nothing to do with standing in front of 50,000 fans. They were writing, singing and putting together videos, and all of them could be done in a small room with only a few people around. That's an attitude I can relate to.
 
Finally, relationships fall apart for all sorts of reasons, and there is no such thing as the objective truth of why something fucks up. Everybody who has an opinion is either a biased participant, or someone who doesn't know what happened. So when it comes to her time with Barrie and what went wrong, the only reasonable response is to nod and move on, and accept what both of them say about it as their take on it.

Sigh. The powers of clairvoyance that some people on this board possess is astounding sometimes. I would have thought we were past the point where sexual behaviour wasn't seen as conflicting with loving being around your family, but apparently we've still got a long way to go, baby. 
 
Here is an alternative explanation for some of the behaviour that doesn't require pretending to have some insight into the mental processes of somebody who you've never met. 
 
Singing, writing, performing, dancing, public relations, mixing with people, taking criticism and being optimistic are all different characteristics or skills. A person can have a few, or all, or none of these, but having one doesn't necessarily mean that you would be expected to have any of the others. To be a pop star, though, you're meant to have all of them, to an extreme degree. Each of us will decide which of them is more important - some people don't think a person should be considered a singer if they can't perform live, others don't care as long as they sound good on record. Some of us don't want to see a singer who can't dance at the same time, others of us don't care. Some of us don't care who a singer treats her fans, others of us really care about how the performer relates to people who like her. But you cannot ascribe a mental iilness to somebody because they are missing a few of these attributes. 
 
Even if Lizzy always wanted to be successful, the fact that there are parts of fame that make her miserable don't make her a hypocrite. They just mean that she couldn't see the future (like most of us can't), and the things that she was looking for in being famous came with a higher price than she expected. It's an age old story, and the only artists who manage to get through it are the ones who find a way to ignore all of the bullshit and focus entirely on the creative process. The rest either burn out or overdose or freak out. I'm hoping that the shift in tone in reporting on Lana - from beautiful puppet to worthwhile songwriter and singer - helps her to make the transition, but at this point, anything can happen. 
 
The Beatles stopped performing live because they couldn't hear themselves on stage, and because nobody cared about what they sounded like. Maybe Lana will decide that the chance to see the smiles on the people in the front row is not worth all of the bullshit, and she'll stop singing live as well. It's 100% true that some of her songs live are better than others, and some of her shows are better than others, and she has a few decisions to make about performing. But from her perspective, the things that she enjoyed doing - that were her way into the industry - had nothing to do with standing in front of 50,000 fans. They were writing, singing and putting together videos, and all of them could be done in a small room with only a few people around. That's an attitude I can relate to.
 
Finally, relationships fall apart for all sorts of reasons, and there is no such thing as the objective truth of why something fucks up. Everybody who has an opinion is either a biased participant, or someone who doesn't know what happened. So when it comes to her time with Barrie and what went wrong, the only reasonable response is to nod and move on, and accept what both of them say about it as their take on it.

Sigh. The powers of clairvoyance that some people on this board possess is astounding sometimes. I would have thought we were past the point where sexual behaviour wasn't seen as conflicting with loving being around your family, but apparently we've still got a long way to go, baby. 
 
Here is an alternative explanation for some of the behaviour that doesn't require pretending to have some insight into the mental processes of somebody who you've never met. 
 
Singing, writing, performing, dancing, public relations, mixing with people, taking criticism and being optimistic are all different characteristics or skills. A person can have a few, or all, or none of these, but having one doesn't necessarily mean that you would be expected to have any of the others. To be a pop star, though, you're meant to have all of them, to an extreme degree. Each of us will decide which of them is more important - some people don't think a person should be considered a singer if they can't perform live, others don't care as long as they sound good on record. Some of us don't want to see a singer who can't dance at the same time, others of us don't care. Some of us don't care who a singer treats her fans, others of us really care about how the performer relates to people who like her. But you cannot ascribe a mental iilness to somebody because they are missing a few of these attributes. 
 
Even if Lizzy always wanted to be successful, the fact that there are parts of fame that make her miserable don't make her a hypocrite. They just mean that she couldn't see the future (like most of us can't), and the things that she was looking for in being famous came with a higher price than she expected. It's an age old story, and the only artists who manage to get through it are the ones who find a way to ignore all of the bullshit and focus entirely on the creative process. The rest either burn out or overdose or freak out. I'm hoping that the shift in tone in reporting on Lana - from beautiful puppet to worthwhile songwriter and singer - helps her to make the transition, but at this point, anything can happen. 
 
The Beatles stopped performing live because they couldn't hear themselves on stage, and because nobody cared about what they sounded like. Maybe Lana will decide that the chance to see the smiles on the people in the front row is not worth all of the bullshit, and she'll stop singing live as well. It's 100% true that some of her songs live are better than others, and some of her shows are better than others, and she has a few decisions to make about performing. But from her perspective, the things that she enjoyed doing - that were her way into the industry - had nothing to do with standing in front of 50,000 fans. They were writing, singing and putting together videos, and all of them could be done in a small room with only a few people around. That's an attitude I can relate to.
 
Finally, relationships fall apart for all sorts of reasons, and there is no such thing as the objective truth of why something fucks up. Everybody who has an opinion is either a biased participant, or someone who doesn't know what happened. So when it comes to her time with Barrie and what went wrong, the only reasonable response is to nod and move on, and accept what both of them say about it as their take on it.

Sigh. The powers of clairvoyance that some people on this board possess is astounding sometimes. I would have thought we were past the point where sexual behaviour wasn't seen as conflicting with loving being around your family, but apparently we've still got a long way to go, baby. 
 
Here is an alternative explanation for some of the behaviour that doesn't require pretending to have some insight into the mental processes of somebody who you've never met. 
 
Singing, writing, performing, dancing, public relations, mixing with people, taking criticism and being optimistic are all different characteristics or skills. A person can have a few, or all, or none of these, but having one doesn't necessarily mean that you would be expected to have any of the others. To be a pop star, though, you're meant to have all of them, to an extreme degree. Each of us will decide which of them is more important - some people don't think a person should be considered a singer if they can't perform live, others don't care as long as they sound good on record. Some of us don't want to see a singer who can't dance at the same time, others of us don't care. Some of us don't care who a singer treats her fans, others of us really care about how the performer relates to people who like her. But you cannot ascribe a mental iilness to somebody because they are missing a few of these attributes. 
 
Even if Lizzy always wanted to be successful, the fact that there are parts of fame that make her miserable don't make her a hypocrite. They just mean that she couldn't see the future (like most of us can't), and the things that she was looking for in being famous came with a higher price than she expected. It's an age old story, and the only artists who manage to get through it are the ones who find a way to ignore all of the bullshit and focus entirely on the creative process. The rest either burn out or overdose or freak out. I'm hoping that the shift in tone in reporting on Lana - from beautiful puppet to worthwhile songwriter and singer - helps her to make the transition, but at this point, anything can happen. 
 
The Beatles stopped performing live because they couldn't hear themselves on stage, and because nobody cared about what they sounded like. Maybe Lana will decide that the chance to see the smiles on the people in the front row is not worth all of the bullshit, and she'll stop singing live as well. It's 100% true that some of her songs live are better than others, and some of her shows are better than others, and she has a few decisions to make about performing. But from her perspective, the things that she enjoyed doing - that were her way into the industry - had nothing to do with standing in front of 50,000 fans. They were writing, singing and putting together videos, and all of them could be done in a small room with only a few people around. That's an attitude I can relate to.
 
Finally, relationships fall apart for all sorts of reasons, and there is no such thing as the objective truth of why something fucks up. Everybody who has an opinion is either a biased participant, or someone who doesn't know what happened. So when it comes to her time with Barrie and what went wrong, the only reasonable response is to nod and move on, and accept what both of them say about it as their take on it.

Sigh. The powers of clairvoyance that some people on this board possess is astounding sometimes. I would have thought we were past the point where sexual behaviour wasn't seen as conflicting with loving being around your family, but apparently we've still got a long way to go, baby. 
 
Here is an alternative explanation for some of the behaviour that doesn't require pretending to have some insight into the mental processes of somebody who you've never met. 
 
Singing, writing, performing, dancing, public relations, mixing with people, taking criticism and being optimistic are all different characteristics or skills. A person can have a few, or all, or none of these, but having one doesn't necessarily mean that you would be expected to have any of the others. To be a pop star, though, you're meant to have all of them, to an extreme degree. Each of us will decide which of them is more important - some people don't think a person should be considered a singer if they can't perform live, others don't care as long as they sound good on record. Some of us don't want to see a singer who can't dance at the same time, others of us don't care. Some of us don't care who a singer treats her fans, others of us really care about how the performer relates to people who like her. But you cannot ascribe a mental iilness to somebody because they are missing a few of these attributes. 
 
Even if Lizzy always wanted to be successful, the fact that there are parts of fame that make her miserable don't make her a hypocrite. They just mean that she couldn't see the future (like most of us can't), and the things that she was looking for in being famous came with a higher price than she expected. It's an age old story, and the only artists who manage to get through it are the ones who find a way to ignore all of the bullshit and focus entirely on the creative process. The rest either burn out or overdose or freak out. I'm hoping that the shift in tone in reporting on Lana - from beautiful puppet to worthwhile songwriter and singer - helps her to make the transition, but at this point, anything can happen. 
 
The Beatles stopped performing live because they couldn't hear themselves on stage, and because nobody cared about what they sounded like. Maybe Lana will decide that the chance to see the smiles on the people in the front row is not worth all of the bullshit, and she'll stop singing live as well. It's 100% true that some of her songs live are better than others, and some of her shows are better than others, and she has a few decisions to make about performing. But from her perspective, the things that she enjoyed doing - that were her way into the industry - had nothing to do with standing in front of 50,000 fans. They were writing, singing and putting together videos, and all of them could be done in a small room with only a few people around. That's an attitude I can relate to.
 
Finally, relationships fall apart for all sorts of reasons, and there is no such thing as the objective truth of why something fucks up. Everybody who has an opinion is either a biased participant, or someone who doesn't know what happened. So when it comes to her time with Barrie and what went wrong, the only reasonable response is to nod and move on, and accept what both of them say about it as their take on it.

Sigh. The powers of clairvoyance that some people on this board possess is astounding sometimes. I would have thought we were past the point where sexual behaviour wasn't seen as conflicting with loving being around your family, but apparently we've still got a long way to go, baby. 
 
Here is an alternative explanation for some of the behaviour that doesn't require pretending to have some insight into the mental processes of somebody who you've never met. 
 
Singing, writing, performing, dancing, public relations, mixing with people, taking criticism and being optimistic are all different characteristics or skills. A person can have a few, or all, or none of these, but having one doesn't necessarily mean that you would be expected to have any of the others. To be a pop star, though, you're meant to have all of them, to an extreme degree. Each of us will decide which of them is more important - some people don't think a person should be considered a singer if they can't perform live, others don't care as long as they sound good on record. Some of us don't want to see a singer who can't dance at the same time, others of us don't care. Some of us don't care who a singer treats her fans, others of us really care about how the performer relates to people who like her. But you cannot ascribe a mental iilness to somebody because they are missing a few of these attributes. 
 
Even if Lizzy always wanted to be successful, the fact that there are parts of fame that make her miserable don't make her a hypocrite. They just mean that she couldn't see the future (like most of us can't), and the things that she was looking for in being famous came with a higher price than she expected. It's an age old story, and the only artists who manage to get through it are the ones who find a way to ignore all of the bullshit and focus entirely on the creative process. The rest either burn out or overdose or freak out. I'm hoping that the shift in tone in reporting on Lana - from beautiful puppet to worthwhile songwriter and singer - helps her to make the transition, but at this point, anything can happen. 
 
The Beatles stopped performing live because they couldn't hear themselves on stage, and because nobody cared about what they sounded like. Maybe Lana will decide that the chance to see the smiles on the people in the front row is not worth all of the bullshit, and she'll stop singing live as well. It's 100% true that some of her songs live are better than others, and some of her shows are better than others, and she has a few decisions to make about performing. But from her perspective, the things that she enjoyed doing - that were her way into the industry - had nothing to do with standing in front of 50,000 fans. They were writing, singing and putting together videos, and all of them could be done in a small room with only a few people around. That's an attitude I can relate to.
 
Finally, relationships fall apart for all sorts of reasons, and there is no such thing as the objective truth of why something fucks up. Everybody who has an opinion is either a biased participant, or someone who doesn't know what happened. So when it comes to her time with Barrie and what went wrong, the only reasonable response is to nod and move on, and accept what both of them say about it as their take on it.

Stay High - Hippie Sabotage

I used to sit and watch the sea and write shitty poetry. Now I am trying to write my novel... But my emotional/health problems gave me writer's block.
I'll make it someday, my own books (not short story or poem collections as before).
 

I was hoping someone would tell me what music I'll be listening to in the future. If someone can tell me what I should have for lunch, I'll be set 

Maybe you are the delusional one... Ultraviolence is a work of art. In point of fact, every album is a work of art. These people are artists and what they do is create art. Some may not have the taste to appreciate some--like myself with techno music, I can come up with one hundred reasons why I do not like it but it is my own opinion and my own taste. I have been told not to criticise it for it is my opinion and I just do not like it. The fact that I am tone deaf to it does not mean that it is not music.
Many people do not like Lolita; they believe it to be a wrong, inappropriate and repulsive novel. But to me, I adore Vladimir Nabokov's posh and proper prose and I do, in fact, enjoy the story itself.
What I am trying to say is that just because you believe it to be bad, it does not necessarily mean it is bad. It is to you and some others (I guarrantee you are not the only one - and I bet some other users on here, too) but not to everyone.
 
I understand you were only voicing your opinion, but "And you will realise this in few months...You won't play it anymore..." is rather personal. How are you to know this? Have you had a premonition? Have you foreseen such? I highly doubt it. As I have said before, we are unique, thus our opinions also being unique. Everyone will have different thoughts on Ultraviolence. That is the way art is concieved, unless, of course, every single human being on this planet is brainwashed and is forced to think a certain way. But then we will no longer be ourselves and the world would be as boring as hell. Of course, I want everyone to like Ultraviolence just like I want everyone to like me, but unfortunately, that is impossible.
 
But returning to my point, I am sure there are many users on here that will still be listening to Ultraviolence for years to come, and I am certain that I am one of them,
 
To me, Ultraviolence is a work of art and a brilliant one at that!

Firstly, thank you for posting the song - it's fantastic. I find it so fascinating that Lana was my big break from all of the music that I had spent so long listening to (I'm talking about BTD), and since I've dug deeper, and particularly with UV, she brings me right back to so many of those things I've loved for so long - country/spaghetti western music, Lou Reed, Serge, Leonard Cohen. Serge is also the guy who recorded a duet with his daughter called Lemon Incest - something that even Lana might think is beyond the pale ... or maybe not 

 
(Side note: Charlotte Gainsbourg is now an actor, and recently appeared in the movie ... Melacholia. Circles inside circles ...)

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

She uses death in her songs in a particular, romantic way. It's not as though her videos are full of scenes of genocide - most of the time death is seen as a barrier to love, which can sometimes be overcome (Dark Paradise) and sometimes defeats you (Blue Jeans). I'd argue that the deliberately movie like quality of so many of her clips, particularly Summertime Sadness, mean that they're not showing death, they're showing a dream world where death doesn't have any repercussions. Her jumping off the bridge isn't going to end with her in a bloody heap at the bottom, but with her waking up.
 
The problem is that pop music is seen as music for children, and one of the jobs that the media has given themselves is to protect children from the idea of death and suicide. But they're hot button issues, which excite and scare people (and sell) so if you can put those words on the front page of your newspaper or magazine, while taking the 'moral stand' of condemning anybody who seems to be 'promoting' them, you get the double win. Protect the children, scare the parents, and use the name of a celebrity to sell the story - the holy trinity of publication, and Lana fits in perfectly.

It's one of her best songs ever, if you ask me.