Lana Del Rey

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

i already said that you can't "purely" talk about the music, and surely questions of personality and persona are part of the music. and frankly i don't think her music is worth discussing, so i couldn't give a care what people write about LDR. but in general people skip over some basic musical things -- like the kind of instrumentation, the overall formal shape of a piece, just like, you know, WHAT IT IS DOING MUSICALLY, in a concrete and describable sense (and as DJP points out, lots of people write all kinds of stuff about this sort of thing, usually w/r/t to classical or jazz music)... people skip over this to the stuff that's easier to write about, that doesn't require specialized knowledge or terminology. but a lot of the "impressions" and "associations" that people love to discuss endlessly are founded on some basic formal patterns in the music, which most critics will barely broach.

i'm not saying that critics SHOULDN'T write about persona, marketing, etc. etc., but in rock criticism the amount of real or virtual ink expended on these "broader," sometimes more nebulous aspects dwarfs the amount of ink used to discuss the formal qualities of the music by a million zillion times. so when i say i wish music criticism (or scholarship) discussed "the music" more, i mean i just wish there was a bit more space for formal analysis in the discussion of popular music. well, a lot more space.

i think rock critics have gotten very good--too good even--at talking about certain things, and are generally very very bad at talking about other things. sometimes i think they've basically expended certain familiar concepts, and now we repeat the same discussions over and over and over (see above) while this whole other realm just sits there waiting to be discussed and analyzed in sophisticated, careful, rigorous terms.

again i could give a shit about LDR--her music seems terminally boring, although i'm sure someone could parse it in ways that would be somewhat interesting. but i'm making a larger point, one i've made before. obviously aside from dan and a few other folks i haven't won any converts, and indeed some folks (chuck eddy IIRC) seemed to take personal offense at the idea that rock criticism could or should be something other than what it is at present. oh well.

i think rock critics have gotten very good--too good even--at talking about certain things, and are generally very very bad at talking about other things. sometimes i think they've basically expended certain familiar concepts, and now we repeat the same discussions over and over and over (see above) while this whole other realm just sits there waiting to be discussed and analyzed in sophisticated, careful, rigorous terms.

I think I said as much when you actually were running with this crusade amateurist, but IMO it's important not to make this into an either/or between blog writing and musicology.

Music criticism should reflect (though not passively or reflexively) what music is used for and how it's used, and this encompasses both of those things, but more importantly encompasses their subtle intertwinings, and many other things besides - most crucially, for me, how certain sounds or modes of performance have connotative or associative qualities that matter (for the creator, for the listener, for the dancer, etc.) in ways that cannot be captured by traditional music theory alone.

i don't care about 'is she indie' but on what planet does persona not enter into the reception of 'the music'?

when you don't know about persona? it's impt to distinguish between the persona that's conveyed in the song and the persona that's conveyed by all the stuff around it.

lex Tim F and deej chin stroking about the role of music journalism... i give this topic six, maybe seven posts tops

grady stop picking at old weeknd scabs, you'll never heal otherwise.

Music criticism should reflect (though not passively or reflexively) what music is used for and how it's used, and this encompasses both of those things, but more importantly encompasses their subtle intertwinings, and many other things besides - most crucially, for me, how certain sounds or modes of performance have connotative or associative qualities that matter (for the creator, for the listener, for the dancer, etc.) in ways that cannot be captured by traditional music theory alone.

― Tim F, Monday, January 30, 2012 3:08 AM (31 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

well sure yeah, but in criticism one side of the equation is like infinitely larger than the other. i'm not asking music criticism to become "traditional music theory" (TBQH there IS little "traditional music theory" when it comes to pop music, it would have to built up from aspects of music theory as its been developed for other kinds of music) -- just that pop music criticism and scholarship do a bit more musical analysis. a lot more. which wouldn't take much, because as i see it, music criticism is basically allergic to this sort of thing with very few exceptions.

to put this another way, let me parse this nice phrase: how certain sounds or modes of performance have connotative or associative qualities that matter

rock critics have become too good at describing "connotative or associative qualities." what they can't do so well is isolate and break down into parts "sounds or modes of performance" and suggest how they function in terms of patterns of expectation and surprise, etc. critics get very vague when it comes to this stuff. just see above. there are maybe two posts in this whole thread that actually try to describe the formal properties of the music as opposed to analyzing lyrics or describing the holistic persona/vibe/etc. that seems to emerge from the music (at least for some).

i mean i'm the first to say that i'm not qualified to write the sort of pop music criticism i want to read. but jesus god most pop music criticism is boring -- just an endless retread of the same clichés, the same debates.

i dont really understand what it is you're looking for music crit to do, specifically

break down into parts "sounds or modes of performance" and suggest how they function in terms of patterns of expectation and surprise, etc. critics get very vague when it comes to this stuff.

like, i think this is a very vague description of this stuff

Presumably he wants more on how the voice, structure, arrangement etc work. You can say a lot about all those things in, say, Video Games without getting into listing the chords.

to me, in my experience, the main problem i have with amateur critics i read is that they don't make the connections between the descriptive and how the things they describe make the music 'work' or what the role of those particular aspects of the song are for the listener. So I don't really see too many music writers ignoring 'how the music sounds' at all

so, say, talking about a song's textures without indicating what the cumulative effect of those textures is for someone hearing them, without making it clear why they're bringing up a description of those textures. Because no one needs a straight description when they can listen to the piece on its own. Instead, the writing I'm most interested in is highlighting things about the music that make it worth paying attention to, worth pulling from the tremendous cloud of Other Music That Exists

i don't really know how increased attention to why the artist did or did not use a sus chord is really necessary

although actually, if an artist is using sus chords to imitate a weather broadcast that might be a relevant thing to bring up

Presumably he wants more on how the voice, structure, arrangement etc work. You can say a lot about all those things in, say, Video Games without getting into listing the chords.

― Meme Rogers (DL), Monday, January 30, 2012 3:55 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

is this really something rare in music crit? i feel like i read descriptions of 'swelling string sections' and such all the time

xxxxxx...post

good question. "swelling string sections" is an extremely general and vague description of something that could sound like a lot of things and have a lot of different effects. "swelling" seems to mean either or both: (1) increasing numbers of string instruments in the arrangement; (2) certain number of string instruments increasing in volume. that doesn't say a lot. at all. if you don't realize that, then you--and myself, to a great extent-- are symptomatic of the problem (which i'd characterize as a kind of musical illiteracy).

my main point is that we need better ways of describing this stuff. more precise ways. richer description, with more concepts and words.

let me answer w/ an example....

this is really basic stuff and not amazing but it's what i could easily access in a few seconds. here's an analysis of a song from mahler's kindertotenlieder. it's not groundbreaking, it's not particularly novel or even all that rigorous in its musical analysis, but it's something that rock criticism rarely does:

http://www.classical.net/music/comp.lst/works/mahler/kindertotenlieder/ktl3.php

an excerpt:

Wenn dein Mütterlein – When thy Mother dear – is the only song specifically about Rückert's daughter. In fact, as we have seen, it is the only song that is about one specific child; the others are about both children or either child. The song states its intentions with the very first line (even if you don't speak German, say these words to yourself, with a heavy step): Wenn dein Mütterlein / Tritt zur Tür herein. Note the simple but effective rhyming of Mütterlein and herein; we'll see an even more effective rhyming at the end of the song. The action of the mother – walking – Mahler portrays by pizzicato bass notes and a steady tread. She appears at the door, and the father sings. But when he does, we are faced again with the awful truth. Most of us know what this first verse is about: When the mother enters the room, the father looks not at her, but where his daughter's face would have been, bright with joy. Starting on a low G, the parent sings two identical upward lines, coming back down to rest on D. The next two identical lines start on middle G and proceed down, coming to a devastating halt on the same D. This upward and downward motion conveys the parent's listless, restless (rest-less!) pacing across their now silent room. But there's much more. Mahler constantly changes time signatures so that the feeling of aimlessness is even more pronounced. In the seventy bars of music there are over twenty changes of time (Henry-Louis de La Grange for sure counted them, but I just can't find the notation). Russell calls this song the most symmetrical in the whole cycle: Not only is it strophic, but "In each stanza an orchestral introduction in 4/4 time is followed by a vocal section in which 3/2 time alternates with 4/4 time." But combined with the steady tread of the cellos, the effect of the alternation is downright disorienting.

i mean i want to know HOW robert wyatt's "sea song" makes me FEEL, or at least why it captures and retains my attention. or indeed why LDR doesn't do this at all.

and the answer isn't just that the wyatt sounds "melancholy" or has a "swelling mellotron" or something. which is nearly as far as rock criticism will usually go in describing a piece of music. perhaps they would try to convey the dynamics of the song in a metaphorical way, which is valid. but it is still imprecise.

I can see the strength of that kind of criticism but I think it's alienating to most readers.

On another note…

P!tchf0rk prediction?

8.1

― piscesx, Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:08 PM (4 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

5.9

― Meme Rogers (DL), Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:14 PM (4 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Lana Del Rey
Born to Die
Interscope; 2012
By
Lindsay Zoladz
January 30, 2012
5.5

Because Rob was first? And the format wasn't hackneyed at that time?