Monicker

Vincent Gallo is selling his sperm. Look at TPD pretending she's not into weird sex.

I bet Gatsby has never even listened to Jay-Z.

Damn, i haven't even heard that one song yet. Should i listen to it? Or should i take a shower? Which one?

This song should be given a CD release on principle since it's only available as an mp3. If it becomes common practice to have mp3-only releases it will surely become the bane of my existence. Although i still don't like Burning Desire. I didn't like that crummy melody the first time around when it was In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida, blarghghfhhghghdghooughghueeoeoiuuuiieeuhghh

I just want to say that i'm a really big fan of people mentioning the exact time in the song they're referring to in these posts because then i can go directly to the spot and hear what they're writing about

I sometimes still can’t believe how anyone can publish anything. Hmmm, we need more hits on our shitty site. What can we do? That singer, what’s her name, Lana Del Whatever, she’s big now, write something about her. She was what? Seen buying snacks late at night, you say? Do a write up on it! Mention how she probably had the munchies because she's on pot. I think this article could have been rewritten as the following: Nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing. Nothing nothing nothing, nothing nothing nothing. Nothing nothing nothing nothing, nothing. Nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing. Nothing, nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing. Nothing nothing nothing nothing, nothing nothing nothing. Nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing. Nothing nothing nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing nothing nothing nothing. Nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing. Nothing, nothing nothing nothing nothing Nothing nothing nothing. Nothing nothing nothing nothing. But it’s okay because people will read it! Oh man, but Diet Coke and Doritos?

Wait, weren't you on acid or some other hallucinogen? I don't know what this emote means but i'm going to use it here.

I love this photo. I might have to stop talking shit about Nicole Nodland (yeah right). Did you notice the shawl is being held up by someone else out of frame and is giving the whole background this kind of newsprint pixel/film grain texture? I think this is the best her hair has ever looked. And those eyebrows, oh my god those eyebrows. And that white long sleeved lacy dress. Gosh. I think this is maybe my favorite look of hers. I wonder who that is in the framed photo. Do you think that's just "random"? Because it'll, lyke, look kewl. I do like how it looks though. Considering the setting and clothing, i wish some of these had been made to look more like film stills. Shhh....

I’m not seeing it as a positive/negative thing. I was just saying that i don’t see the reasons for imposing those guidelines on how she should conduct interviews. Something that i think a lot of people don’t realize or remember (myself included because i tend to forget sometimes) is that Lana Del Rey is not giving these interviews for us. This place is insane. We are insane. We pick every single last shred of meat off the bone. We scrutinize everything. We know every single interview she’s done. So for us, her interviews are painfully repetitive. Or it may seem to some of us that she’s mentioned outreach work/charity a lot when, to the average fan, she really hasn’t. This is the nature of being a public figure and being interviewed frequently by several different sources and markets. People who are interviewed like this are mostly repeating shit because they’re covering a lot of bases, and you can only vary your responses so much. Overlap is inevitable. Also, for the most part, celebrities get asked the same shit all the time. I don't think that's unique to Lana or an indication that she and/or her management are screening questions and only allowing certain ones through. Remember that a publication and interviewer reflect its audience. So if a clueless interviewer is asking her very basic stuff, stuff that has been asked a million times before, it is most likely that the bulk audience of that publication doesn’t know this stuff, just as the clueless interviewer doesn’t know, hence the questions in the first place. They are catering to their readers, not to the minority cult following. We are small in numbers. Think about the amount of fans she has, the number of record sales, and then take a look at how few people are registered on this forum, the only active forum that exists for her (and how many of those are people who registered and never bothered coming back more than twice?) Most people that read her interviews, i’m betting, do not read every single one of them like we do. Even within this forum we haven't all read every single interview, so it’s almost like it’s a niche within a niche. I think people being interviewed recognize this, so they don't necessarily see it as repeating the same stuff over and over. Plus, you think most people who are interviewed as much as she is keep perfect track of all their responses? I'm sure we are more familiar with her responses to interview questions than she herself is. I think, like most any celebrity, when she answers a question, she has a broader audience in mind, not the obsessive/fanatical core of fans. And i don’t think that she’s thinking of giving a satisfactory answer in the same way that we’d consider it satisfactory. In all honesty, we probably fucking freak her out some and she’s probably a little put off by us to an extent. Not in those words, no, but: So if someone mentions philanthropy more than once, according to what you wrote above, you expect them give the name of the organization, no? That's all i was pointing out. But i guess i have the answer to the why now (because you find it in poor taste).

Depends when in 2007. Let's say 5 and 1/2 years. Also, it's always just one use with time machines. Go somewhere and back and then it gets destroyed for whatever reason. That's just how it goes. SCIENCE, man.

You would waste your one time time machine usage on going back five years ago for some Lizzy Grant songs and shows? I want to murder you senselessly.

I'm waiting for our beloved A-TL to say something about this. Where is that asshole?

Are we wearing white tube socks? What's happening in this thread?

Can you imagine? Sitar gets with Ben and then turns on us like a little shit?

I could totally get behind this. Except, ideally, i'd switch #1 with #2.

That is never the job or the responsibility of the singer. If the vocals were too loud that falls on the person doing the mix. Mixes for televised music performances can be pretty poor if the engineer is not familiar with the artist's music, which they're often not. Well, there needs to be a first time, no? I don't really understand where you're coming from with this. The impression i've always had with her mentioning charity work "too much" (i don't think that) is to emphasize what she says about music not being everything to her. I get the sense that she wants to convey to the average reader, who may have misconceptions about her, that she doesn't see herself as really fitting in with the image and perception that one may have her celebrity peers. It seems to me like it's her way of saying there's more to her than making records. And there's a lot of evidence that seems to verify that. Look how infrequently she tours and how little she promotes. She has already mentioned, within one year of her rise to fame, the idea of possibly moving on to something beyond music. By all accounts, she's a relatively private person. To say that she's not helping any organizations by not mentioning them specifically by name in interviews in pop culture media is baseless. The work itself is helping organizations. It is not her role to promote charities. She is conducting interviews in entertainment media regarding her music; the fact alone that she is mentioning these things at all is already above and beyond. Who's to say that she is obligated to give an interviewer specific information on the social work she's done or is planning to do? The onus in these interviews is not on her to prove to her fans the legitimacy of this work. And it's also not the sort of time-sensitive thing like, say, a hurricane relief effort, where anyone can pitch in money and act fast on a crisis, so "plugging" the charity is a moot point. There's nothing inherently dubious about this being a relatively private matter. Also, why should it have to be all-or-nothing, either mention the charity or don't say anything at all? What is the basis for imposing that on someone? You say you don't think wealthy people are obligated to make donations, but you do think they're obligated to disclose which organizations they're working with if they do decide to make donations? I don't understand that reasoning.

Oh, that all too familiar feeling of having big ideas, things that seem amazing in theory, all worked out nicely in the mind, only needing to be executed, and then...nothing happens.

Jesus. I'm sorry. Wow. I forgot (momentarily? thanks for the reminder...) that it's 2013. I thought we were in 2012, haa. You're right. Feb. 2012, not 2011. That's what i meant. I was thinking 2011 was last year... What is wrong with me? What a way to destroy my own joke.

Liz can't wait 2 B back at Ruby Tuesday in 2011, at the height of her career. But the pressing question: Waiting/hosting for old times' sake? Or just droppin' in for that amazing salad bar?

This is how shit starts.

I'm actually wearing it right now. I'm not giving it up. Sorry.

Sounds to me, Hillary, like you want to believe that i think a lot about this. I really don't though. It's just that one sees mention of it in threads all throughout the forum, it's unavoidable, even if, like me, one doesn't read Lanalysis . What i wrote was a reaction to the prevalence of this, not some sort of veiled attempt to deflect attention from my secret fixation with the subject. It's an unpopular opinion, i'm just playing the game. Is your dick ready 4 me in the D-A-R-K?

I don't know about her (or you guys), but filling out the MySpace info with absolute bullshit was a thing. At least i thought that's what a lot of people did? I certainly was not truthful about any of the info on my profile. Then Facebook came along and it was time to get SERIOUS.

Weird, i don't get that feeling at all from the "oh my god." To me, it has a cute, sweet, and almost mischievous quality to it, as if she's about to start laughing nervously. I wonder what was going on that caused her to say that. Maybe she snuck a boyfriend into the studio and, right as she was finishing the vocal, he knocked his coffee cup into a grand piano, or like, dropped a $7,000 microphone that he wasn't supposed to even be touching

Is this thread real?