okay but i still really don’t agree with the “it all sounds the same” take. and I think a lot of people are just stuck on ultraviolence as the gold standard and ignoring everything that’s happened since. like yeah, she’s shifted away from that sound, but to act like everything since has been whispery ballads with minimal production?? come on. that’s just not true.
and tbh it’s totally fine not to like where she’s gone sonically, everyone has their own taste. but let’s not pretend it’s because the music has no range. sometimes it feels like people just want uv 2.0 over and over, and anything that isn’t that gets called “boring". also I find it kinda funny that let the light in was the standout for you from ocean blvd, because that’s literally slow and soft guitar. basically the kind of song you’re calling out. like???
okay but like i kinda get this point too. born to die, ultraviolence, honeymoon, lust for life, they all had distinct aesthetics. but at the same time you can’t expect an artist to completely reinvent themselves every album. that’s just not sustainable and honestly not even necessary. lana’s more recent stuff does share a core vibe, but that’s because she’s clearly settled into a sound that feels true to where she’s at now. it’s not about playing dress-up in different genres anymore. it’s more internal, lyrical. she’s refining, not recycling.
and like why does “sounding similar” automatically mean bad or lazy. a trilogy of albums with shared sonic dna can still explore totally different emotions and themes. she’s doing that, just in a more subtle less flashy way than before
so yeah the criticism is valid to an extent, but fans get annoyed because it often comes with this tone of “she’s fallen off” or “she’s not trying” when in reality she’s just not doing what some people want anymore. and that’s not a flaw. that’s growth.
