Lana Del Rey

lordgoat

heard the album it's pretty much 4/10 for me. Nothing spectacular, nothing new, some nice hooks but nothing lasting.

Also pink - Bob Dylan - there's nothing authentic about him imo, robbed songs left right and centre, robbed his 'look If anything i'd think he's the opposite of authentic. Still has managed to write some great songs but it irks me that he got his break from capitalising on a lot of great artists that never got the credit. (I've debated this in many other threads so maybe i shouldn't have put it in here but it's one of those things i find tough to let go - i'm sure you get that! Apologies!)

pinksoir

Yeah, I get the whole "well so and so is anything but authentic but they're a great artist" argument. It's just not what I'm saying. Bob Dylan, like him or not (I could take him or leave him tbh) is the real deal. He put in his 10,000 hours. He slogged through cafes and what have you until he got his break. Any artists worth their salt has done the same. Name any band you like and you have a band that has started off sucking in front of an empty venue and worked their way up.

My point is that LDR hasn't done any of this. And no matter how much money her label throws behind her they can't buy that. Which is evidenced by her awful live performances. The age of MTV is over. Artists can't hide behind music videos any more. That was a short lived period in the greater scheme of things and now we're back to the 50's where an act has to do their 10,000 hours. Some people are born to be on stage. Most have to work at it for years. Anyone could write a song. That ain't enough any more. If you can't perform it live you're toast. LDR is a vacuum of charisma. Not because she's a good or bad songwriter but because she's absolutely zero experience. And as a result she's utterly unremarkable.

That's what I mean by authentic. Authentic as in someone who has worked their ass off to get where they are, who has lived and breathed music and has earned the privilege to make a living from what they love. An authentic artist.

Art doesn't have to be authentic in the sense you mean. But the one making it has to be the real deal.

My rant is about what has been an extremely cynical attempt by a major label to try and market an artist to the indie/alternative crowd and completely misjudging it because they're so far out of whack with how that world of music now operates. The world has moved on without them, they're nearly completely irrelevent. Money in music is now made through the gig goers dealing almost directly with the artist, not through album sales. They're the architects of their own downfall and LDR is a prime example of how out of touch they are. It's a shame that someone like LDR has to bear the brunt of their failings, but how and ever.

lordgoat

I think you have authentic and hard working confused tbh.

pinksoir

Hardworkingness is a factor in artistic authenticity. There is probably a better term for what I mean, if I was smarter I'd be able to express it more clearly. Commitment to the vision, seeing it through and being uncompromising or whatever. I dunno. Anyway, it's a philosophical concept so by its nature difficult to explain...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authenticity_in_art

The "Bob Dylan is inauthentic" argument doesn't go because you're talking about a completely different type of authenticity. His vision, uncompromisingness and commitment to seeing through the vision, and whatever else is authentic, even if he's not Woodie Guthrie. And in order for these things to galvanise takes the hard work. In regards to art, pop music especially, there is very little that is truly authentic but rather the end product of the artist's influences put through the sieve of his own mind. I'm not sure if it even makes sense to talk about authenticity in the way you mean it when it comes to art. Unless we're talking about the avant garde. Maybe.

Whatever about that, it's extremely acedemic.

My gripe isn't with LDR, as I keep saying, but with the out of date machinery behind her. And that's my point.

I have no idea what LDR's artistic vision is, or whether she has one or not. The problem with major labels is they don't give room for artistic vision and everything is a compromise. They used to, but now they don't. Mostly because they aren't thinking long-term, they want a finished product to market and development isn't considered. And now because they're on the wane this is intensified. But that's not what people want from their music any more. There is just too much music out there and people have to be much more discerning. LDR strikes me and other people as a pathetic attempt by the record industry to try and trick music lovers (not tourists) into believing the industry is still relevent. If her management had any interest in her integrity or long term success as an artist they'd have gone a different route other than the quick buck.

johnny_ultimate

But can you not just simply ignore the activities of the major labels barring the rare circumstances when it's too interesting to ignore? It's hardly like there isn't a hugely vibrant music scene in countless genres and styles that is entirely divorced from the labels.

Every medium has a hugely commercial mainstream, a pleasant middleground (where I'd wager most of all our favourites tend to reside) and a militantly lo-fi / independent scene. There is never a lack of choice. All it boils down to is an individual's ability to negotiate it on their own terms and not get weighed down by what the society's consensus is

pinksoir

I totally agree and by and large I do precisely that.

It's just that there was a time when the majors was the only place acts could go to have success, but that time has passed. Or if not passed then passing rapidly. Pretty much every band that will be still around in ten years will not be on a major. The labels want to create another success like Adele but she is an anomoly and it's not a bankable business strategy. Small labels are so far ahead in terms of long term thinking and the majors are bullheadedly sticking to the old system and losing.

I just think that's great. And music is flourishing in a way it never has done before. And great music is more accessible than ever precisely because it isn't filtered through some businessman in a major label.

The types of strategies majors are looking towards that I've heard of are pretty pathetic - gearing towards ringtones and so on. The reality is that the majors are doomed. The days of obscene amounts of money being made by labels are over. Because it was the quo for the last 20 years meant that the labels became complacent and innovation stagnated, both in the sorts of artists they signed and the way they did business. But then the internet came along and the buried their head in the sand until it was too late. Their time in the sun was nothing but a spike in the grand scheme of things.

In my view LDR is a good example of someone caught on the edge of a shifting paradigm and that's the only reason I bothered posting in this thread. I think it's incredibly interesting and inspiring.

Hackysack

Gave her a try there recently. She struck me as being more boring than Dido.

buck65

LDR and her ilk never put in the 10,000 hours, modern pop music was always the same, 80's 90's and now.
Bands just wrote a tune at best or had one written for them and took it from there. Some made it instantly, most faded away. Very few put a few years into playing and writing pop music - chart music - and stuck at it with no success.
Most of these bands inc. LDR come out hard and then fade away. Nature of the beast.
Rock music of course is different.
Let's not confuse the issue.

lordgoat

buck65 wrote: »

LDR and her ilk never put in the 10,000 hours, modern pop music was always the same, 80's 90's and now.
Bands just wrote a tune at best or had one written for them and took it from there. Some made it instantly, most faded away. Very few put a few years into playing and writing pop music - chart music - and stuck at it with no success.
Most of these bands inc. LDR come out hard and then fade away. Nature of the beast.
Rock music of course is different.
Let's not confuse the issue.

I think i'd tend to agree with alot of this. Kept it nice and simple there buck, kudos. Also when's your next gig in these parts?!!!;)

Denalihighway

sink wrote: »

Listened to the album for the first time today and first impressions are positive, couldn't give a monkeys about anything else beyond the music.

+1

it says a lot about us, the weight we give to these back-stories, gossip and often idle begrudgery. much of which is online.

I can understand why people might resent the fact that someone has been given a better chance at success than others, through money, contacts, or whatever the case may be.

But music is generally enjoyed first and foremost (by me at least) on a sensory level.

it seems a lot of people have already made up their mind about some music before they've even heard it.

i don't care if it was manufactured by a million songwriters and she's a rich kid. it doesn't change the music.

i rate the music. its very pleasant. she has a nice voice. so what if she screwed up SNL, she's human. the same people would be giving out if she faithfully recreated the album version - "she's got no character yada yada".

different strokes i guess

superluck

I didn't hear her sing live but so far, her music seems derived from other sources and she sings on top of them.

In 'Blue Jeans', she sounds like Kate Bush singing over 'Wicked Game' by Chris Isaak.
After searching around, many other people hear the similarities so it ain't just a coincidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAOxCqSxRD0

Temaz

Still liking the album a few months on.

superluck

I haven't heard the album but presumably the 2 tracks I have heard are the best off it and since they sound like other peoples music, I'm sure I haven't missed anything.

The chorus for Cher Lloyds first release 'Swagger Jagger' was derived from Nursery Rhyme, 'Clementine'

What makes DLR any different from CL?

Absolutely nothing because neither of them can write their own music.

There's nothing wrong with doing covers and including them on the album, I remember Nirvana doing a great cover of Shocking Blue's 'Love Buzz' but atleast they didn't claim to write it...

jessicasul

her songs are prettier than her, those big lips are terrifying

Temaz

Quite liking the album she released under the name 'Lizzy Grant'

Jim_Kiy

Her Career started at 12.00 its now 12.05..she might play till 12.10 but there wont be an encore.

Sitec

Sorry for bringing up an old thread but will she be playing in Ireland any time soon?

lordgoat

Sitec wrote: »

Sorry for bringing up an old thread but will she be playing in Ireland any time soon?

Hasn't her descent into obscurity and side notes already started?

Being serious though, i doubt it.

J_E

superluck wrote: »

I didn't hear her sing live but so far, her music seems derived from other sources and she sings on top of them.

In 'Blue Jeans', she sounds like Kate Bush singing over 'Wicked Game' by Chris Isaak.

She sounds nothing like Kate Bush :pac:

*BUMP*

Anybody out there have an opinion on Ultraviolence? Personally I think it's an improvement on Born to Die; it's weirder, woozier and less blatantly commercial than BtD was. It is very top heavy though, with pretty much all of the highlights being in the first half of the album.

"West Coast" and the title track are definitely two of the best songs she's done thus far.

Da Shins Kelly

I like the West Coast song, think that's the best song she's made, and another song, Sad Girl, is quite good too. I've only heard a couple of the other tracks off the album, and it sounds pretty much like more of the same to me. Similar lyrical theme - damsel in distress, Hollywood starlet stuff.

Sam Mac

I personally prefer Born to Die, but to be fair I haven't listened to Ultraviolence enough yet to get a full idea.

Ultraviolence is certainly a very good album though, I really like the tracks 'Ultraviolence' and 'West Coast'.

Would love to see her live at the Marquee, but all the tickets are sold out