Lana Del Rey

jeez louise, queasy? you are on an internet message board. on the internet! plus, a lot of what you described are things that make the whole damned thing interesting. how people react to things. i think its interesting. kinda. plus, it's friggin' january. i mean come on.

x-post

so, what lessons did we learn from this entire phenomenon?

New board description

I don't think this stuff is gross or weird, and I don't think LDR should read her press instead of weighing it. Most of the articles on her are less actually about her than about the other people writing about her. Meta music journalism run amok, replete with fast fields of strawman controversies. She just happens to be the lightning rod in the center of it all.

so, what lessons did we learn from this entire phenomenon?

never give up on your dreams. it may take years and years of work to get a chance to suck on SNL, but no one can take your ILM singles poll ranking from you.

except azaelia banks

I'm not surprised she's rereleasing the first album, it would go a long way toward dispelling the idea that she can't sing at all, it's very pretty in places; it's not as 'adventurous' and it's hardly a pop masterpiece but it has some really great stuff on it.

christ this thread

well that lovefest for frogbs
this morning ended quick
video games

imma ruin you cunt
imma ruin you cunt
video gaaaames

ha

"I think people really throwing hate her way are threatened by her and her DSLs"

2nd comment on Nitsuh's piece in NY Mag

I dunno man, you just described the hype/backlash cycle, that doesn't seem to be unique to "sexy" female stars

i dunno. my response here was personal and perhaps not too sensible. something crystallized in my head when dan contrasted getting lip injections for the image with being "authentic" and bateau followed up with that depressing "sex doll at the piano" photo (which may have some subtext i'm missing, i dunno). i just got the heebie-jeebies. and i don't really mean to accuse anyone in particular.

thing is, and though i'm as fucked up about it as anyone else (see my first post itt), i have a very hard time with appearance-based criticism when it's directed at female pop stars. the demands placed upon them are so elevated, so grotesque and so internally conflicted. i'm just amazed that anyone survives it.

and it's the internet and it's january and i'm an overearnest dork, i know, but every once in a while, i just hit the wall. no one's fault but mine, and i probably should have just gone back to that delightful racism thread.

Is this much different than say Vampire Weekend going from blog sensation to backlash over perceived lack of "authenticity" once their privileged backgrounds got more press attention.

imma ruin you cunt
imma ruin you cunt
video gaaaames

― first period don't give a fuck, second period gon get cut (lex pretend), Friday, January 27, 2012 5:11 PM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

hah

Me will mek yuh run out a mi house
Inna half ah frock
video games

running from the cops
in our black bikini tops
LAST FRIDAY NIGHT

i really think that nitsuh wrote about this on his tumblr / nymag better than anyone

― guilt is a useless emoticon (D-40), Friday, January 27, 2012 3:34 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

no offense to nabisco but why don't you just save us some time and only tell us when you DON'T think he wrote the definitive article on a subject

I'm enjoying the album a fair bit more than I'd expected to, although several of the tracks sound a lot more like Britney than I'd have guessed.

saw this via ann powers/facebook:

http://amyrebeccaklein.tumblr.com/

saw this also via facebook:

http://flavorwire.com/252898/just-the-music-an-experimental-review-of-lana-del-reys-born-to-die

Recently, the author Sara Marcus told me something surprising: Femininity’s dictionary definition is nothing more than “having qualities traditionally ascribed to women, effeminate, and womanish.” I looked it up to confirm, and it turned out that she was right. In other words, femininity, when you look it up in the dictionary, is entirely vacant of meaning—nothing more than a signifier for itself. Isn’t it strange that no part of “the feminine” says anything about what women really are? It strikes me as significant that the word “femininity” is a mirror of itself, endlessly reflecting our own beliefs.

for fuck's sake

masculinity (noun): possession of the qualities traditionally associated with men

oh man that quote. has marcus ever looked at a dictionary? b/c there are a million words defined that way.

recursively i mean.

e.g. eccentricity: "the quality of being eccentric."

http://www.millsworks.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/writing_process.gif

ARK piece is generally OTM when it comes to LDR and the consumption/loathing of, but the first half is full of unsupported generalities, truisms passed off as truth, and cheap deck-stacking:

Although both the feminine and the masculine represent social constructions, detached from the realities of who people are, it is important to realize that we attach to femininity a series of external, and therefore performable, qualities, while we attach to masculinity more qualities that are internal, native to the self. Try to make a list of the qualities we associate with men: Strength, intelligence, conviction, opinion, reason, declarations, freedom, anger, violence, forcefulness. Then try to list what you read as feminine: Good hair, good makeup, vacillation of opinion, caring for others, and gentleness, perhaps. The first thing you’ll notice is that feminine qualities are more superficial and less descriptive of identity. The second thing you’ll notice is that it’s harder to make a list of internal feminine qualities because we in fact don’t really talk about what women really are, below the surface of what appeals to us.

i kind of wish academic cultural studies never happened. it just gives people an opportunity to sound imposingly smart while making unfounded claims.

judy berman's review (the second piece scott linked) is far worse. first of all, it's profoundly dishonest. it pretends that it intends to discuss the music and only the music, then immediately reneges on that promise, completely ignoring the music in favor of another exploration of the political implications of the LDR persona. and it's so crushingly simplistic and literal-minded. no admission that the persona might have any artistic or political complexity. no admission that the assumed audience might not be limited to "the default heterosexual male listener".

if a female painter were to create a series of portraits of sexualized, disempowered and "mysterious" women, would we be so quick to discount the possibility that there might be artistic intent and merit behind the project? if not, then why is berman so quick to presume that the LDR album not only depicts a void but in fact IS a void?

it pretends that it intends to discuss the music and only the music, then immediately reneges on that promise

so much rock criticism does this. "but what really matters is the music..." then presto! more discussion of the band are perceived by the press, etc.

i don't know why anyone gives a fuck about lana del rey, though, that's the fundamental problem.

theres no such thing as 'just discussing the music' & its getting really tiring to read that constantly

'why doesn't pitchfork ever just discuss the music' is the most banal problematic bullshit

theres no such thing as 'just discussing the music' & its getting really tiring to read that constantly

'why doesn't pitchfork ever just discuss the music' is the most banal problematic bullshit

This is seriously the dumbest thing you have ever said

There are entire academic disciplines built around "just talking about the music"; the problem is that you and most of your contemporaries have no grounding in that world and therefore find the very concept unthinkable.

guys be cool http://i.imgur.com/zi7hd.gif

theres no such thing as 'just discussing the music' & its getting really tiring to read that constantly

well in absolutely pure sense sure music is imbricated in the world blah blah

but i know you know what we mean when we contrast "discussing the music" with discussion personae, critical reaction, "is she indie?" and all that other stuff.

the real problem is that talking about music requires somewhat specialized knowledge and training and stuff and for some reason almost NO rock critics bother with that stuff. while somehow there are many (not most, but many) film critics that have some understanding of how to analyze film, how it's made etc.

xpot

wot DJP said

guys be cool

― dave cool, Sunday, January 29, 2012 7:53 PM (31 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

easy for you to say! it's in your name!

i kind of think its interesting to see different people's reactions to the same thing. LDR is the perfect blank slate for people to project upon. that's kinda the point in a way!

audio games, think abt it http://i.imgur.com/zi7hd.gif

i kind of think its interesting to see different people's reactions to the same thing. LDR is the perfect blank slate for people to project upon. that's kinda the point in a way!

― scott seward, Sunday, January 29, 2012 7:54 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

why do you think that is? is it just that her music is so dull?

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lf3fcsigcb1qczi4lo1_500.jpg

LDR is vague. its the vague gaze. susan sontag could explain it. and the sky's the limit. you can talk about class, race, femininity, etc. she was made for academics. or academic types.

what's with clara rockmore up there?

plus people were getting tired of talking about idol and ke$ha.

oh that's who i thought of when dave cool said audio games.

what's up with clara rockmore's scandalous tank top btw?

hey, she was ahead of her time. in more ways than one.

Video Games (video game version)

pitchfork

i don't agree that you can 'just' discuss the music, because the music is approximating feelings & ideas & concepts that are entirely context-dependent. Sorry dudes

but i know you know what we mean when we contrast "discussing the music" with discussion personae, critical reaction, "is she indie?" and all that other stuff.

the real problem is that talking about music requires somewhat specialized knowledge and training and stuff and for some reason almost NO rock critics bother with that stuff. while somehow there are many (not most, but many) film critics that have some understanding of how to analyze film, how it's made etc.

xpot

wot DJP said

― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Sunday, January 29, 2012 7:54 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i don't care about 'is she indie' but on what planet does persona not enter into the reception of 'the music'? you can't just dissociate them like that

I guess the argument would be that those things - feelings, concepts, and matters of personality - are all a part of the music. A writer may deal with those aspects in specific relation to the music or more abstractly.

pitchfork

― encarta it (Gukbe), Monday, January 30, 2012 8:04 AM (54 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Pitchfork otm