Will Lana ever put Lana Del Ray on streaming services?

[ilovetati 15,295]

She used to talk about a reissue and has spoken about the project more in recent years after seeing how much fans love it, but she still seems hesitant to make it available online again. This is likely due to the assertions of inauthenticity surrounding her buying it back and taking it down when Born to Die debuted. Or, perhaps because of the permission needed from David Kahne and the revenue participation due (David Nichtern mentioned that here: http://www.mtv.com/news/2695337/lana-del-rey-first-album-5-points-records-interview/).

 

What do we think? 

 

 

[SparkleJumpropeNoose 8,748]

she doesnt have the range to remember it

[sirensXsilence 462]

I wish she would. It's a great album and deserves more exposure.

 

That interview is really interesting, btw. Never knew the exact background of the AKA record.

[MoreCruelThanYou 5,277]

No, now lock the thread.

[longtimeman 8,069]

I think she's never going to be as interested in putting out old music, as she is in whatever she's working on at the moment (for better or worse).

[13bitches 6,175]

After we get the Cherry and PWYC videos

[bluefiona 8,050]

[Coney Island King 25,044]

Nope

[KingJay 2,981]

Meh, I doubt she ever will, and it’s whatever imo. At least we have it in full and get to enjoy it lol. The only way I would really care is if she maybe re worked the songs as a special edition or something.

[necessary sacrifice 8,864]

You need all kinds of permissions to reissue an album or even to put it up on streaming services because other people were involved. Even if she wanted to (don’t know whether she’d want to or not), she can’t just make the choice on her own. It’s illegal.

For example, Stevie Nicks’ first album, Buckingham Nicks, hasn’t been reissued since 1975 and isn’t on streaming services despite her loving the album. Stevie Nicks and Keith Olson (their producer) have been interested in rereleasing it for decades but not everyone involved does, thus it’s been in limbo.

So I imagine Lana could be in a similar situation.

[UltraviolentJack 2,415]

No, now lock the thread.

 

why is it whenever people talk about something other than the same 2 topics people ask to lock

[ChaoticLipster 23,801]

She better

[mkultraviolence 5,829]

she won't. maybe she thinks it doesn't reflect her personality anymore (she still has some aspects that will never change but her perspective has since shifted from that era) and she'd prefer releasing music that reflects how she feels now.

[ilovetati 15,295]

You need all kinds of permissions to reissue an album or even to put it up on streaming services because other people were involved. Even if she wanted to (don’t know whether she’d want to or not), she can’t just make the choice on her own. It’s illegal.

For example, Stevie Nicks’ first album, Buckingham Nicks, hasn’t been reissued since 1975 and isn’t on streaming services despite her loving the album. Stevie Nicks and Keith Olson (their producer) have been interested in rereleasing it for decades but not everyone involved does, thus it’s been in limbo.

So I imagine Lana could be in a similar situation.

Lana owns AKA. She would just owe royalties.

[UltraviolentJack 2,415]

she won't. maybe she thinks it doesn't reflect her personality anymore (she still has some aspects that will never change but her perspective has since shifted from that era) and she'd prefer releasing music that reflects how she feels now.

 

it's already been released it's just a matter of making it accessible 

[TrashMagiq 55,328]

If ‘Put Me in a Movie” wasn’t on it then maybe she would’ve by now, but the little girls line would cause too much controversy if the song was just out in the open like that. People would take it the wrong way. Also I doubt she’s still even interested in that album. Born to Die was like a fresh start.

[mkultraviolence 5,829]

it's already been released it's just a matter of making it accessible 

 

it was released almost 10 years ago. i'm saying she may not want it re-released because she's changed as a person over the last decade and AKA just doesn't represent who she is anymore

[necessary sacrifice 8,864]

Lana owns AKA. She would just owe royalties.

Yeah and Stevie Nicks owns Buckingham Nicks too. It doesn’t make a difference.. Owning doesn’t necessarily mean no permissions are required anymore. Most people involved in making it still would be involved in reissuing it. They just can’t rerelease it without Lana’s permission. There’s a lot more factors to reissuing music than just owning the publishing.

[IanadeIrey 60,722]

AKA is on Slacker Radio. When you buy a Tesla it comes with Slacker Radio music streaming service and AKA is available under "Lana Del Ray." I was surprised when I saw it! 

 

https://www.slacker.com/album/lana-del-ray/lana-del-ray

[American Whore 47,568]

At some point, maybe. She’s talked about some old unreleased songs even that didn’t have the right production, etc. and that she wants to release some unreleased works. Even if she reworked some tracks into new albums... she could do what she’s done with parts of tracks like the “Lights camera action” thing on HBTB or how she redid Yayo