Lana Del Rey covers Rolling Stone August 2014

[evilentity 13,303]

Funny. The Fiona lyric, "You fondle my trigger, then you blame my gun," feels relevant here. But it's a two-way street, for sure: Lana provokes the media by saying strange/unsettling things in interviews and in music then refuses to account for them; the media provokes Lana by asking her difficult and triggering questions, and then sensationalizes her dramatic and/or uncooperative response. Neither side is innocent at all.

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.

 

@@evilentity Didn't you say you're borderline INTJ/P? There's no way you're really this judgmental.

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:

They're very tolerant and flexible in most situations, unless one of their firmly held beliefs has been violated or challenged, in which case they may take a very rigid stance.

The INTP has no understanding or value for decisions made on the basis of personal subjectivity or feelings. They strive constantly to achieve logical conclusions to problems, and don't understand the importance or relevance of applying subjective emotional considerations to decisions.

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

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 trying to leave open the possibility that even in a situation of conflict, NEITHER party is necessarily in "the wrong."

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.

[veniceglitch 375]

DeadAgainst, on 19 Jul 2014 - 4:34 PM, said:

 

Except that Ayn Rand was an atheist, and Lana is a mystic. Your article is the sort of thing written by extreme Extroverts who want to encourage corporate groupthink; good traits if you want to be in middle-management but not necessarily if you want to be an independent artist.

 

This describes her better than anything: http://www.carlkingdom.com/10-myths-about-introverts

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.

[essiductonto 170]

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.

[veniceglitch 375]

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.

 

And that cycle will continue as long as she chooses to deny reality and create conflict for herself. She's a smart girl, she understands the nature of cause-and-effect and the natural order of media. She could choose to be a brilliant media strategist if she wanted; she could have them eating out of her hand. Instead, she chooses to 'fuck (up) her way' thru the process and deflect blame. It's fine for now, and I do think a lot of it is the media's fault for regurgitating the same questions instead of showing a deeper interest in her work. I think she's offended by that. But I wonder at what point she'll choose to take control and force the dialogue to change.

[veniceglitch 375]

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 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.

[Summersault 822]

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.

 

 

 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.

[Chris Cuomo 3,318]

It's LDR fans who know her well enough to not be surprised by her attitude and these type of responses in this interview, but does the GP? Probably not. I bet you a lot of folks who pick up RS faithfully are going to read this article and add it onto the long list of reasons why LDR is [insert negative blah blah ]… if LDR's drama queen responses were somehow justified due to the interviewer being nosey, rude, etc, then this would be a different story but they weren't.

 

I like how Lana's individuality was compared to punk rock. She clearly represents the current counter culture. But with that said, sometimes an artist, a mainstream one too, has to look passed their qualms or quirks and just answer a question. She takes so much of what is asked of her as a personal attack.

 

I often wonder if these interviews are forced on her by management for promotional reasons. She said she gave in with The Guardian. Who's to say the same didn't happen here. If that's the case, she probably went in there expecting the worst from the interviewer. And that's my biggest problem with her. She's grown a custom to the backlash and hate to the point where she seems to expect it from people. That's a shitty way of thinking. I guess at the end of the day these things serve their purpose- they get people to talk about her.

 

Sometimes I think it would be better that she hid herself from the media spotlight, like Fiona Apple or Sia. She's working against herself IMO. It looks like its a burden for her.

 

Just my onion.

[Sitar 22,173]

OK, then explain to me how my characterizations of what you said are inaccurate.

 

Really? Where do you think this view of her came from? Am I just imagining her Twitter tantrum over the Guardian interview or the numerous other frosty interviews and interviews she's cut short over the years?

 

No, I'm not sympathetic to the fact that she can't seem to handle being asked expected interview questions or have the grace to just politely say "no comment". If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

 

Because it isn't a matter of special treatment to me, it's human decency. Why is her reaction to these things a "tantrum" but there's no similar accountability for interviewers? My problem is that you just simply won't hear anything positive about her--maybe more accurately, anything negative about anyone who tries to put her in "her place." I think it's way less accurate to say I'm ever trying to absolve every crazy thing she does than it is to say you seem to relish picking at her personality. Your criticism of objectivity applies both ways.

[TrailerParkDarling 5,680]

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

 

 

I so agree. And it's no wonder that she shut down.. it seems like she knew the angle the story was headed. Or maybe she didn't want to stick her foot in her mouth again. Either way, I like that she took the power in her hands and controlled the situation.. the interview portrayed her as very confused and unpredictable which I think is accurate.

 

And God the ending reads like an excerpt from valley of the dolls lol

[evilentity 13,303]

Because it isn't a matter of special treatment to me, it's human decency.

Exactly. I don't think she's shown decency towards the journalists that are interviewing her.

 

Why is her reaction to these things a "tantrum" but there's no similar accountability for interviewers?

Accountability for what? These recent interviewers haven't done anything wrong.

 

My problem is that you just simply won't hear anything positive about her--maybe more accurately, anything negative about anyone who tries to put her in "her place."

Absolutely not true. I hear, and remark on, many positive things. Just recently I specifically praised her NYT profile and how well she came across in it. "Put her in her place"? Please. That's an incredibly loaded phrasing carrying connotations (including sexist overtones) far beyond anything I'm trying to convey here. I'm merely saying I see a pattern of behavior in her interviews that I find objectionable and unwarranted and that I'm frankly mystified when others fail to see it or find it off-putting.

 

I think it's way less accurate to say I'm ever trying to absolve every crazy thing she does than it is to say you seem to relish picking at her personality. Your criticism of objectivity applies both ways.

I never said that you specifically try to "absolve every crazy thing she does" in every case, just that there's a tendency among many on the forum towards doing this and I think it would be misguided to do it in this case. And I don't relish picking on her personality at all. I'd love to read more interviews and not find her behaving appallingly towards her interviewers. I'd love for her to come across well more often so that people don't wrongfully dismiss her. Unfortunately that just hasn't happened very often recently.

 

And it's no wonder that she shut down.. it seems like she knew the angle the story was headed. Or maybe she didn't want to stick her foot in her mouth again. Either way, I like that she took the power in her hands and controlled the situation.. the interview portrayed her as very confused and unpredictable which I think is accurate.

...Except that other than her shutting down I thought this was a very good, mostly positive article and that up until that point she came across pretty well. (Aside from the intro which foreshadowed her meltdown.) I think the only reason the story headed in that angle is because of the way she reacted.

[COLACNT 5,171]

Accountability for what? These recent interviewers haven't done anything wrong.

 

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]

[Sitar 22,173]

Exactly. I don't think she's shown decency towards the journalists that are interviewing her.

 

 

I do admire your consistency.

[essiductonto 170]

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

[KillKillQueen 1,298]

I'll say this, as an extreme introvert, a sensitive person, and a creative type, and frankly kind of a selfish asshole: All that tortured artist shit goes out the window in the real world. Save it for the studio, save it for your journal, save it for your canvas, because nobody gives a fuck about your emotional needs outside of those places. It hurts, and it's hard, and you won't make friends with everybody, but you won't win. Lana should know this by now, and honestly, if she doesn't, she needs better handlers who do. It's nice to say "she's not cut out for this" but she wanted this kind of fame, did she not?

 

You can't be on Kimye wedding levels of fame and screw up half of your press. Even Kanye can get through an interview unscathed once in a while. I really feel for her, but how many times can we blame the journalists for doing their job too throughly?

[Viva 3,168]

First rule of Journalism? The absence of the "I" or " Me" . A journalist should tell a story from the "truth" perspective, being always neutral, there for the "I and Me" need to be extinct . In interviews such rules are kind of grey since they mix with the rules of a personal column in a newspaper which is completely different from an article. But in anyway an interview should reflect the opinion of the interviewer over the object being interviewed.

 

Exactly. I don't think she's shown decency towards the journalists that are interviewing her.

 

She doesn't need too. She's the object of study they need to tell the story. That's pretty much it.
 

Accountability for what? These recent interviewers haven't done anything wrong.

 

Well, in theory they didn't. On the other hand , manipulate words and thoughts is a old trick. Thing is, what they manipulate isn't really a factor that needs attention since Lana's "opinions" are never directly political or social matters. It's pretty much gossip.
 

Absolutely not true. I hear, and remark on, many positive things. Just recently I specifically praised her NYT profile and how well she came across in it. "Put her in her place"? Please. That's an incredibly loaded phrasing carrying connotations (including sexist overtones) far beyond anything I'm trying to convey here. I'm merely saying I see a pattern of behavior in her interviews that I find objectionable and unwarranted and that I'm frankly mystified when others fail to see it or find it off-putting.

 

That's because you can see Lana uses the media as much (maybe more) the media uses her. She's far from innocent and most of her comments, I would bet good money, are well planned, including the suicide ones.
 

I never said that you specifically try to "absolve every crazy thing she does" in every case, just that there's a tendency among many on the forum towards doing this and I think it would be misguided to do it in this case. And I don't relish picking on her personality at all. I'd love to read more interviews and not find her behaving appallingly towards her interviewers. I'd love for her to come across well more often so that people don't wrongfully dismiss her. Unfortunately that just hasn't happened very often recently.

 

IMO Lana is a incredible advertiser in the sense even her quotes are made to be jingles. Nothing is planned even if everything was planned from the beginning. 
 

...Except that other than her shutting down I thought this was a very good, mostly positive article and that up until that point she came across pretty well. (Aside from the intro which foreshadowed her meltdown.) I think the only reason the story headed in that angle is because of the way she reacted.

 

That's not the important factor or the right question. The right question is: did she did it on purpose? 

[DominicMars 1,761]

You can't be on Kimye wedding levels of fame and screw up half of your press. Even Kanye can get through an interview unscathed once in a while. I really feel for her, but how many times can we blame the journalists for doing their job too throughly?

 

God damn, I wish I disagreed with this comment.

[FormerLanaFan 169]

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 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.

[evilentity 13,303]

But I don't understand your wording regarding her actions for which she has to be accountable?!

All the things you go on to mention are not at all what I'm talking about. I'm specifically talking about her agreeing to do these interviews in the first place, then rudely overreacting to fair questions provoked by her own music and words, dramatically shutting down interviews, and even attacking her interviewers. It's just atrocious behavior and completely disproportionate to anything the interviewers are doing. If this is the way y'all act, well, then I'm glad I don't know you IRL.

 

It would be one thing if she were reacting this way to the same members of the media that unfairly criticized her in the past. But they're not. In fact this interviewer clearly says those criticisms were wrong. If she expects a fair shake from them she needs to give them a fair shake.

 

 

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 pretty clear from the article that he was asking this facetiously and that Lana also took it that way.

 

 

A thought experiment: Put yourselves in the interviewer's shoes for a moment. How many of you really think you could interview her as long as this guy did asking interesting questions without accidentally setting her off that results in something that's interesting to read and isn't just a fawning paean to your goddess? Obviously I couldn't. But I doubt you could either.

 

And I still haven't heard a good answer why she can't just politely demur when something makes her uncomfortable.

[PrettyBaby 2,213]

LOL. Wow. Seriously? Has this discussion really devolved into psychoanalyzing each other's motives?.

Yes, when you accused people of giving LDR a pass because they like her music, the conversation on this and other threads devolved to this level. I should not have responded in kind. I'm sorry for offending you.

 

Rather than bore everyone with our little drama, I'll continue this conversation via PM if you don't mind. When I have time, and access to a mouse :/

 

I do want to go on record as agreeing with EE's primary concern that journalists should be treated with respect and basic human decency. I just don't think anyone has to agree to equate resembling someone's pet peeve with actually committing wrongdoing.

[FormerLanaFan 169]

All the things you go on to mention are not at all what I'm talking about. I'm specifically talking about her agreeing to do these interviews in the first place, then rudely overreacting to fair questions provoked by her own music and words, dramatically shutting down interviews, and even attacking her interviewers. 

So, the actions that you think she's accountable for it's her behavior in her recent interviews? The only really problematic interview was the Tim Jonze interview. She reacted angrily afterwards on twitter and not during the interview. Her reaction was nervous and useless and just magnified her words. Lana had a point tho that he forced the whole dead artist thing and she bite it unfortunately. But why is Lana the only negative person in this? Maybe she felt that way on that particular day, we know that she is depressive and melodramatic but the interviewer can push some people to say things that they wouldn't say it normally. She got upset with him, so what? This is a despicable behavior? I don't think so. The RS interview was after that episode and he was just insensitive about it, I think that you give him to much credit for being nice with her. She was always open to interviews (albeit apprehensive) and you are unfair towards her by saying that she is the only factor for the "failure" of some interviews. I experienced some radio interviews where she just politely swallowed a lot of BS (for example in a recent radio interview, when UV was coming out, an idiot was asking her about DMD suggesting that is an ridiculous title for a song and she responded that she loves DMD and she wrote an ode to it  )