Lana
MSnider44
San Diego Posts: 746
Not sure why everyone and their moms are slamming Lana Del Rey's performances on TV, but I for one, really enjoyed her and thought she did well on SNL and Letterman. I also really like her songs Video Games and Blue Jeans. Am I missing something or am I tone deaf?
Also, Rolling Stone just gave her debut album 2 stars - guess I'll have to check out the rest of the album, so so far so good for me. Pitchfork = 5.5 out of 10 (I guess?)
Also, Rolling Stone just gave her debut album 2 stars - guess I'll have to check out the rest of the album, so so far so good for me. Pitchfork = 5.5 out of 10 (I guess?)
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
From what I've read on the internet people are kind of put off by her. Supposedly she gave interviews saying she grew up poor and gave a whole backstory that turned out to be not so truthful. She comes from a wealthy family (her father has bankrolled her music career), went to boarding school in Connecticut and then Fordham University.
Also they say (once again I don't know for sure as I don't pay much attention to her) she started off as a sort of pop singer named Lizzy Grant, and after her music career didn't take off she returned with a new name, possible plastic surgery, and a whole new image/backstory/style.
These supposed actions of hers have really put people off.
Before
After
I don't really care. It's not like this would be the first time an artist was packaged by a record company, IF that is the case here. Katy Perry used to be a gospel singer didn't she? Now she's some risque pop act with her ass hanging out everywhere. Avril Lavigne used to be a country singer who turned around and was a "sk8er punk" the next day, nobody seemed to mind.
*(sidebar)* I could care less what she, or anyone else, was before - just as long as they make good music (in my opinion as to what good music is) in their rebirth.
Her album sucks. "Video Games" and "Blue Jeans" are definitely worth keeping. The rest are in the recycle bin.
RS was right on: "Given her chic image, it’s a surprise how dull, dreary and pop-starved Born to Die is."
I think a lot of the backlash comes from the fact that people really bought into this image. And her image really was the biggest part of her success. I mean, she was one of the most talked about artists around and was on SNL weeks before her debut album (unless you count her other debut album under another name/persona) had even been released, essentially for being a YouTube sensation. I know many people liked the 1-2 songs on YouTube, but for the most part people were buying into the image. They felt she was some struggling singer/songwriter do-it-yourself hipster indie chick. When it came out that she was a failed mainstream artist who had been bankrolled by her millionare father, rebranded and reimaged (and possibly altered with plastic surgery) to appeal to a different audience, that audience was miffed. Or some of them were.
I would imagine a lot of this would blow over if the album delivered the goods, but as many reviews (and yourself have said MSnider) it apparently doesn't. I read one review that called it "the album equivelent of a faked orgasm". Of course music is subjective, but as it stands most of the opinions don't seem to be liking it. If the music is good enough she'll make it. People will overlook anything if you have enough talent. And many music careers have survived much worse than being dishonest about who/what you are.
I found the Liz Phair piece a bit odd, but interesting. On one hand she's defending Lana, but also admits to buying the album only because of the phenomenon surrounding it, and says Lana is not overwhelmingly talented. I don't know, in the course of writing this I managed to catch one of her songs, and it's just not really my cup of tea so I probably shouldn't even really be opining on it. My point is just that I can kind of see both sides of the argument when it comes to Lana Del Rey, or Lizzie Grant, whatever you want to call her. I think if they had just picked a different demographic to try and sell her to there wouldn't have been so much backlash.
But they all think they are. I think a lot of the backlash is them being redfaced over the fact that a corporate label was able to "figure them out" and spoon feed them something.
Redfaced is right...if you're going to expose their club for what it is, then you can't be in it.
it harkens back to a time that no longer exists, and her whole persona, and how she presents herself, how she sings, the sound of the strings in her songs, are very reminscent of old hollywood, sinatra, golden age movie stars and the like. The opening lines of Video Games and the original non youtube censored version both heavily reinforced this.
Then the hipster scene which loved her, started to turn on her. Hipster Runoff and others, started talking about her lips, and her rich father, and the fact she changed her name.
Usually backlash is non existant. People always talk about it but you rarely see it.
This backlash is visible. she only played a few gigs as lana prior to snl. and then snl with brian williams and juliette lewis publicly bashing her.
i dont really see why the backlash happened really or why people seem to get so heated about it. There are many beloved bands who were wealthy already, The Strokes, for one. And many people change their names, in all aspects of the entertainment industry. And many people are newbies.
Just from a human and creative point of view, its got to hurt her, emotionally, the negative things people are saying.
haha. im surprised there hasnt been a thread on her before. video games got huge over the summer, and im especially surprised no one posted anything immediately following her SNL performance and the mayhem that ensued.
i disagree. with the exception of myself, you would be hard pressed to find anyone, including those who look, dress, talk, and conduct their lives like a stereotypical hipster, self identify as one. thats the interesting thing about the scene or movement or whatever it is. People were proud to be an anarchist or a punk, or into grunge, or a metal fan, a hip hop head. Some of the most biting and intense criticism of hipsters comes from those who it would be safe to say are actually hipsters themselves. Hipster Runoff is a perfect example. Portlandia is another.
Major labels have known about hipsters a long time. I dont think they found out anything in terms of lana. Indie and hipsters have been trendy and cool since at least 2001. Anyone ever see The OC. the entire show was catering to pushing the genre to teenybopper girls. garden state and zach braff have been pushing the genre and scene to a mainstream audience since 2001 when scrubs first aired, and the garden state in 2004. Major labels have known about indie for a long time. I dont think its any secret thats whats selling. Look at Bonaroo, Sasquatch, and Coachella the last 8 years, its all indie and indie approved bands.
Also i dont really know or get how, if we are going on the assumption that the labels had lizzie change her name, and adopt a persona, why and how, her adopting the stage persona of a 1940's and 1950's hollywood film star or a singer from the 1950's, and her claiming influences of that period, elvis, sinatra and so on, how is that indicative of a major label pandering to a hipster audience? with the exception of adele or amy winehouse, 1950's old hollywood and sinatra arent exactly the type of thing i'd push lana to do if i was a major label exec trying to woo a hipster audience!
brief interview
sings acappella. i get how she may not be everyones cup of tea, as i said, not too many people right now are influenced by sinatra and elvis and 1950's hollywood, but she can sing.