It’s been quite a fortnight for Lana Del Rey. Last week, she was lauded as a “singer-songwriter laureate” and “the great American poet of the 21st century”. This week, she closed the Lollapalooza festival in the US by being physically dragged offstage.
As befits a woman who has made art out of channelling feminine archetypes, the show’s design was suitably saturated in oestrogenic imagery. The dramatic stage ejection in question was carried out while the star was recumbent on a full-length train, discarded from a wedding dress worn earlier in the set. She crooned out her first and probably still most famous hit song — the narcoleptic “Video Games” — while sitting on a giant swing covered in ribbons and flowers. Another number was sung while getting her hair and make-up fixed up onstage. There was even a scene involving a maypole. As one rapt reviewer put it: “Everything about the singer’s performance carried a delicate feminine touch that made you assured you were in safe motherly arms to feel all the emotions she conjured.”
Elsewhere this week, a much earlier version of Del Rey was also in the news. Images were discovered and gleefully circulated online of a young Lana — or Lizzy Grant, as she was before her professional name change — modelling ponchos for a knitting pattern catalogue. Fresh-faced and pink-cheeked, Lizzy cycles through some of the stock facial expressions of the catalogue model — demure, cute, proto-sultry — while gamely sporting a variety of tassel-heavy monstrosities. Though she doesn’t know it, ahead of her lies a totally distinctive musical path, a lot of kohl and back-combed hair, some astonishing songs full of rapture and disappointment, and several truly horrible takes by music critics. The pathos is palpable.
Knitting seems like a suitable metaphor for an artist’s creative trajectory — for there, too, you have to just keep going without catastrophically unravelling, until everyone can finally see what it is you were making all along. In the early stages of Del Rey’s career, barely anyone could see what the visually literate philosophy graduate with a beautiful voice was constructing.
Her sun-bleached, tearstained, drowsy West Coast sound was dismissed as pretentious pastiche. Her tremulous, dazed voice with its sensually sibilant diction — swooping from breathy to raspy to pure to the occasional throaty growl — was mocked as pitchy and inadequate. It was suggested that her act was wholly contrived by others; that she was artificially enhanced by plastic surgery; that she pretended for publicity purposes to have lived in a trailer park (she had, for a while) and her father was actually a millionaire (he wasn’t).
In his savage review of her first album Born to Die (2012), the New York Times’s reviewer began: “It’s already difficult to remember Lana Del Rey, but let’s try… That moll with the dangerous tastes in men and pastimes and the puffed-out lips and hair?… Yep, it was a pose, cut from existing, densely patterned cloth. Just like all the other poses.” The author concludes with barely suppressed triumphalism: “The only real option is to wash off that face paint, muss up that hair and try again in a few years. There are so many more names out there for the choosing.”
Luckily for us, though, Lana-who-was-once-Lizzy persisted. By the time of her album Ultraviolence (2014), with songs such as “Shades of Cool” and “West Coast”, she had perfected her persona of the somewhat sedated but still-devoted girlfriend, swooning at the recollection of kisses with beautiful boys destined to let her down. Just underneath the blank-faced, Xanax-induced composure lay a wave of archetypal female emotion and lachrymosity, surging towards whichever male with an attachment disorder currently occupied the sacred position of “my baby”.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe antipathy toward Lana Del Rey’s music simply for not exuding the right amount of sneering contempt for men goes to show how hateful modern feminism has become.
Agreed.
And anyone using “problematic” in its currently fashionable idiom is likely to receive a prolonged view of my back. It’s gone from being a serviceable adjective to more the weasel word of choice for the passive aggressive contingent.
I always read ‘problematic’ as ‘I vaguely disapprove of this thing, but I haven’t the guts to say so explicitly, or the clarity of thought and expression to spell out what’s wrong with it. To make things worse, I enjoy using herd-following words, expressions and modes of thought.’ (such as the four-syllable heartsink I’m bitching about in this comment, futilely)
I think in this context the use of problematical is reprehensible.
I always read ‘problematic’ as ‘I vaguely disapprove of this thing, but I haven’t the guts to say so explicitly, or the clarity of thought and expression to spell out what’s wrong with it. To make things worse, I enjoy using herd-following words, expressions and modes of thought.’ (such as the four-syllable heartsink I’m bitching about in this comment, futilely)
I think in this context the use of problematical is reprehensible.
Well OK – but some of the men in her songs genuinely are toxic but “she” loves them nonetheless.
The bigger fault of modern feminism is to see men in general, or “masculinity” as such as toxic.
True, default “toxicity” in men seems to be an ideé fixe for some people.
Being able to quickly identify the feminists certainly helps when deciding who is worth interacting with.
Kathleen Stock is a feminist don’t you like her? Why has feminist become a dirty word? There are plenty who aren’t extreme.
Given that the word feminist has become a toxic label for angry, man-hating harridans I’m surprised anyone would want to claim the title. Maybe they are under the mistaken understanding that feminism stands for fairness and equality of opportunity, things that everybody agrees with and no one is opposed to. In reality, equality and fairness are the veneer that feminism uses to hide behind. To understand what feminism really stands for is not difficult. There are many books on feminism which expose the true nature of the movement. Anyone who cares to can read them for themselves.
I don’t think it’s up to you as a man to tell feminists what feminism should be about. Why do you say we are trying to hide behind equality and fairness? What do you think we are trying to do? Your attitude sort of proves the point really. Men still telling women how to behave and think.
Really well said Ali.
Not really. Just trotting out something they’ve heard (herd) others say.
Anyone has a perfect right to debate on any subject whatever, regardless of skin colour, gender etc.
Besides feminism impacts on men as well as women, so men have an interest in the matter.
Now before you reply with a hackneyed feminist phrase, bear in mind that feminists are weighing in heavily on the trans debate. Why? Because they, and women, have an interest in the matter. It affects them just as feminism affects men.
Not really. Just trotting out something they’ve heard (herd) others say.
Anyone has a perfect right to debate on any subject whatever, regardless of skin colour, gender etc.
Besides feminism impacts on men as well as women, so men have an interest in the matter.
Now before you reply with a hackneyed feminist phrase, bear in mind that feminists are weighing in heavily on the trans debate. Why? Because they, and women, have an interest in the matter. It affects them just as feminism affects men.
Tough
Feminism is a religion that informs the total configuration of society; and any human being has an obligation to address, comment, evaluate.
Really well said Ali.
Tough
Feminism is a religion that informs the total configuration of society; and any human being has an obligation to address, comment, evaluate.
Excuse me! Who gave feminism such a label? Ah you did.
I don’t think it’s up to you as a man to tell feminists what feminism should be about. Why do you say we are trying to hide behind equality and fairness? What do you think we are trying to do? Your attitude sort of proves the point really. Men still telling women how to behave and think.
Excuse me! Who gave feminism such a label? Ah you did.
Everybody likes her – because her mind is open, she evaluates evidence honestly and uses reason clearly and openly. There’s very little rhetoric in her writing and she is able to look at a subject from more than one side. She writes in good faith.
Even if you don’t agree with her she is worth reading, and provides a genuine test for your own beliefs. I’m sorry, but in all that she is very unfeminist.
It’s so annoying when people say “sorry” before they express a point of view. What would you have us call our ourselves since “feminist” has become a dirty word?
Maybe don’t. Just engage with the facts, the arguments and what other people say without a label. As soon as you adopt a label you start to become tribal and answer as you think a feminist should. We’re hampered enough in our thinking without laming ourselves with labels.
What sets KS apart is that she is truer to the spirit of philosophy than the spirit of feminism. That’s what makes her worth reading, and gets her respect across the board (a few fanatics excepted).
Maybe don’t. Just engage with the facts, the arguments and what other people say without a label. As soon as you adopt a label you start to become tribal and answer as you think a feminist should. We’re hampered enough in our thinking without laming ourselves with labels.
What sets KS apart is that she is truer to the spirit of philosophy than the spirit of feminism. That’s what makes her worth reading, and gets her respect across the board (a few fanatics excepted).
It’s so annoying when people say “sorry” before they express a point of view. What would you have us call our ourselves since “feminist” has become a dirty word?
Like is not the relevant word. Disagreement. It’s not the ‘extremism’ of feminism…..Feminism is the problem, mainly because it’s an extension of the billiard ball, individualist anthropological vision of humanity that informs all traditions of liberalism and socialism. Kathleen’s treatment by academia has been terrible. Her response has been brave and laudable. I wish her every success. But like Helen Joyce and others (Kelly JK excepted) she has not been willing to admit the extent to which the current lunacy is the logical extension of feminism. Rousseau, Engels, Kollontai, De Beauvoir, Firestone….Butler…..and now ‘critical gender theory’ – are all of a piece. She can’t reject trans politics without rejecting feminism at the same time….The reassertion of biology and of a vision of human beings as being forever ‘dependent rational animals’ is communitarian and traditionalist – and must be. It requires a complementary understanding of the sexes; sex linked to child bearing/rearing and the cultural reproduction of society; intergenerational families…..And it requires the Cartesian/Kerouac image of humans as perpetually mobile, transacting and ‘free’ – like some perpetual 1970s rock and roll road movie (‘Almost Famous’) – perpetual teenagers – to be rejected in favour of mutual obligation, mutual care, mutual identification and ….ultimately (I’m afraid) …..devotion to a transcendent God. Feminism comes from atheist materialism….and that has always been the problem
Given that the word feminist has become a toxic label for angry, man-hating harridans I’m surprised anyone would want to claim the title. Maybe they are under the mistaken understanding that feminism stands for fairness and equality of opportunity, things that everybody agrees with and no one is opposed to. In reality, equality and fairness are the veneer that feminism uses to hide behind. To understand what feminism really stands for is not difficult. There are many books on feminism which expose the true nature of the movement. Anyone who cares to can read them for themselves.
Everybody likes her – because her mind is open, she evaluates evidence honestly and uses reason clearly and openly. There’s very little rhetoric in her writing and she is able to look at a subject from more than one side. She writes in good faith.
Even if you don’t agree with her she is worth reading, and provides a genuine test for your own beliefs. I’m sorry, but in all that she is very unfeminist.
Like is not the relevant word. Disagreement. It’s not the ‘extremism’ of feminism…..Feminism is the problem, mainly because it’s an extension of the billiard ball, individualist anthropological vision of humanity that informs all traditions of liberalism and socialism. Kathleen’s treatment by academia has been terrible. Her response has been brave and laudable. I wish her every success. But like Helen Joyce and others (Kelly JK excepted) she has not been willing to admit the extent to which the current lunacy is the logical extension of feminism. Rousseau, Engels, Kollontai, De Beauvoir, Firestone….Butler…..and now ‘critical gender theory’ – are all of a piece. She can’t reject trans politics without rejecting feminism at the same time….The reassertion of biology and of a vision of human beings as being forever ‘dependent rational animals’ is communitarian and traditionalist – and must be. It requires a complementary understanding of the sexes; sex linked to child bearing/rearing and the cultural reproduction of society; intergenerational families…..And it requires the Cartesian/Kerouac image of humans as perpetually mobile, transacting and ‘free’ – like some perpetual 1970s rock and roll road movie (‘Almost Famous’) – perpetual teenagers – to be rejected in favour of mutual obligation, mutual care, mutual identification and ….ultimately (I’m afraid) …..devotion to a transcendent God. Feminism comes from atheist materialism….and that has always been the problem
Kathleen Stock is a feminist don’t you like her? Why has feminist become a dirty word? There are plenty who aren’t extreme.
And you would know David, would you not, exactly what the fault is with modern feminism, being a man. [snork]
Elaine – if you have nothing to say, then say nothing. You’re just trotting out hackneyed retorts that add nothing to the debate and just make you seem silly.
Elaine – if you have nothing to say, then say nothing. You’re just trotting out hackneyed retorts that add nothing to the debate and just make you seem silly.
True, default “toxicity” in men seems to be an ideé fixe for some people.
Being able to quickly identify the feminists certainly helps when deciding who is worth interacting with.
And you would know David, would you not, exactly what the fault is with modern feminism, being a man. [snork]
Antipathy by whom?
Agreed.
And anyone using “problematic” in its currently fashionable idiom is likely to receive a prolonged view of my back. It’s gone from being a serviceable adjective to more the weasel word of choice for the passive aggressive contingent.
Well OK – but some of the men in her songs genuinely are toxic but “she” loves them nonetheless.
The bigger fault of modern feminism is to see men in general, or “masculinity” as such as toxic.
Antipathy by whom?
The antipathy toward Lana Del Rey’s music simply for not exuding the right amount of sneering contempt for men goes to show how hateful modern feminism has become.
Professor Stock’s writing is so good that even when I couldn’t care less about the subject matter – pop music – I stay to the end and enjoy the ride. I’ve not enjoyed reading cultural essays this much since Camille Paglia’s heyday.
Spot on. She writes beautifully and I, like you, have little interest in this particular subject, Kathleen Stock regularly turns out essays that I find fascinating. I usually agree with her arguments but even when I don’t I reckon that it’s probably me that’s wrong.
Most of all, she seems to be a wonderful example of a feminist. If you mess her about she’ll have your b@lls (metaphorically) but always comes across as liking and caring for men (as well as women).
I love reading Kathleen’s work. I also love Lana Del Ray. Kathleen expresses what I know about LDR but cannot put into words.
Exactly. I hadn’t heard of Lana del Rey (I keep thinking it’s the beach town Marina Del Rey) but I knew Kathleen would make it interesting. She could write about baked beans and I’d be captivated.
I love reading Kathleen’s work. I also love Lana Del Ray. Kathleen expresses what I know about LDR but cannot put into words.
Exactly. I hadn’t heard of Lana del Rey (I keep thinking it’s the beach town Marina Del Rey) but I knew Kathleen would make it interesting. She could write about baked beans and I’d be captivated.
Yes Graeme, she’s a treasure. Her and Mary Harrington, brilliant.
Spot on. She writes beautifully and I, like you, have little interest in this particular subject, Kathleen Stock regularly turns out essays that I find fascinating. I usually agree with her arguments but even when I don’t I reckon that it’s probably me that’s wrong.
Most of all, she seems to be a wonderful example of a feminist. If you mess her about she’ll have your b@lls (metaphorically) but always comes across as liking and caring for men (as well as women).
Yes Graeme, she’s a treasure. Her and Mary Harrington, brilliant.
Professor Stock’s writing is so good that even when I couldn’t care less about the subject matter – pop music – I stay to the end and enjoy the ride. I’ve not enjoyed reading cultural essays this much since Camille Paglia’s heyday.
Images were discovered and gleefully circulated online of a young Lana — or Lizzy Grant, as she was before her professional name change — modelling ponchos for a knitting pattern catalogue.
Anyone using one of said knitting patterns will end up with a serviceable and very real poncho, while the online world is a resolutely unreal blasted and howling wilderness populated only by dogs and ghosts. Kudos to Miss Del Rey for providing us with something real and useful, in addition to her music.
Images were discovered and gleefully circulated online of a young Lana — or Lizzy Grant, as she was before her professional name change — modelling ponchos for a knitting pattern catalogue.
Anyone using one of said knitting patterns will end up with a serviceable and very real poncho, while the online world is a resolutely unreal blasted and howling wilderness populated only by dogs and ghosts. Kudos to Miss Del Rey for providing us with something real and useful, in addition to her music.
The Machine boosts the Machine narrative and criticises other narratives (or tries to squeeze them into the approved shoebox).
So Lana Del Rey is criticised for not following the Music Machine narrative – because journalists don’t know how to cope with someone outside the narrative.
You can probably remember others outside the approved narrative. Trump, Farrage, the Polish government, Giorgia Meloni, Liz Truss. It doesn’t always end in tears but they had a much harder task overcoming the Machine narrative.
I’ll add another: “Sound of Freedom”. I saw it yesterday and the media hacks calling it various versions of “a right-wing Qanon wet dream” clearly didn’t see it. The soulless ghouls who run the narrative outlets were told to sneer at it, and so they obeyed.
I’ll add another: “Sound of Freedom”. I saw it yesterday and the media hacks calling it various versions of “a right-wing Qanon wet dream” clearly didn’t see it. The soulless ghouls who run the narrative outlets were told to sneer at it, and so they obeyed.
The Machine boosts the Machine narrative and criticises other narratives (or tries to squeeze them into the approved shoebox).
So Lana Del Rey is criticised for not following the Music Machine narrative – because journalists don’t know how to cope with someone outside the narrative.
You can probably remember others outside the approved narrative. Trump, Farrage, the Polish government, Giorgia Meloni, Liz Truss. It doesn’t always end in tears but they had a much harder task overcoming the Machine narrative.
“Lana Del Rey’s dissident femininity. She embodies the dark underground of female experience.”
Well, there you go. Whatever sells records. I fear that Kathleen has invested too much in a pop singer. I understand: When I was a teenager, I thought that Bob Dylan had something to tell me. He didn’t. He just strung empty phrases together and allowed me to contrive meaning from that which was meaningless.
Well, I hope your rabbits die. Bob Dylan has been contriving odd insights into the human condition since his late teens, and still does; and he continues to find unexpected melodies, rhythms and phrasings with astonishing creativity. In his 80s. Ok don’t go to his live shows now, but it’s a mistake to call his music meaningless, and I’m happy to see you outside about this.
Completely agree. I thought “Murder most Foul” showed he still had something interesting to give us.
Well said.
Completely agree. I thought “Murder most Foul” showed he still had something interesting to give us.
Well said.
Darkness at the break of noon
Shadows even the silver spoon
The hand-made blade, the child’s balloon
Eclipses both the sun and moon
To understand, you know too soon
There is no sense in trying
I am familiar with the lines. They don’t mean anything. The penny dropped when I reached the grand age of twenty-one.
No need to be supercilious. You are not the arbitor of taste or meaning. So while they may not mean anything to you, but they do to others.
“Although the masters make the rules for the wise men and the fools, I’ve got nothing, Ma, to live up to.”
It has nothing to do with taste.
Says the man who writes (patronisingly, but presumably in all seriousness) “I fear that Kathleen has invested too much in a pop singer.”
Taste: the ability to discern what is of good quality or of a high aesthetic standard.
Why are you getting so uptight? The job of a mainstream pop singer is put out a string or records that will sell. Aesthetic standards don’t come into it. If you find the songs fun then fine, but don’t pretend that there is anything more to them than that.
PS: If you really want poetic beauty: tragedy mixed with humour and what it means to be a woman in a man’s world, then buy a copy of June Tabor’s collection of border ballads: The Echo of Hooves. How such stuff came out of such a wild time and place is almost beyond comprehension, but it did.
Actually feel the hostility in your posts. Kettle and black.
There is no hostility in my posts.
Uh huh.
Stop regarding disagreement as hostility.
And you stop regarding disagreement as being “uptight”.
Yeah, no. Your use of language shows you to be angry…calm ‘er down there fella, and to quote you, “stop!”
And you stop regarding disagreement as being “uptight”.
Yeah, no. Your use of language shows you to be angry…calm ‘er down there fella, and to quote you, “stop!”
Stop regarding disagreement as hostility.
Oh please!
Uh huh.
Oh please!
Exactly, Polidori is projecting onto your words which is exactly what one does with cryptic musical lyrics.
There is a difference between cryptic and meaningless.
There is a difference between cryptic and meaningless.
There is no hostility in my posts.
Exactly, Polidori is projecting onto your words which is exactly what one does with cryptic musical lyrics.
Well there you go that’s your taste! Because you like her doesn’t mean Dylan is bad.
Calm down!
Criticizing me doesn’t invalidate what I’m saying..
Criticizing me doesn’t invalidate what I’m saying..
Calm down!
Actually feel the hostility in your posts. Kettle and black.
Well there you go that’s your taste! Because you like her doesn’t mean Dylan is bad.
Why are you getting so uptight? The job of a mainstream pop singer is put out a string or records that will sell. Aesthetic standards don’t come into it. If you find the songs fun then fine, but don’t pretend that there is anything more to them than that.
PS: If you really want poetic beauty: tragedy mixed with humour and what it means to be a woman in a man’s world, then buy a copy of June Tabor’s collection of border ballads: The Echo of Hooves. How such stuff came out of such a wild time and place is almost beyond comprehension, but it did.
Yes, it does. Everything does.
Says the man who writes (patronisingly, but presumably in all seriousness) “I fear that Kathleen has invested too much in a pop singer.”
Taste: the ability to discern what is of good quality or of a high aesthetic standard.
Yes, it does. Everything does.
It has nothing to do with taste.
I’s rather meanspirited of you. I have to accept that lines of lyrics and poetry rarely mean much to me, I don’t understand them, but they often sound great and that’s enough.
I agree that Dylan’s lyrics are ambiguous, which doesn’t mean the Lana Del Ray’s lyrics are. I can’t say that I’m very aware of her output but of the songs I have heard, I like. This contrasts with Taylor swift whose output is boring to my ears. There’s an otherness to Lana’s music. Lyrics – don’t care.
What does any poem ‘mean’
It’s not reducible or literally descriptive.
Get back to your accounts and spreadsheets then.
My degree was in philosophy, not accountancy.
Well good for you. Can you be a bit more philisophical, then.
Well good for you. Can you be a bit more philisophical, then.
Hmmmm – there are certainly poems which don’t give themselves all at once. There are others which have an aura of profundity about them though their meaning is elusive (eg the Rilke line “beauty is nothing but the beginning of terror”).
But that leaves the possibility, much exploited in more pretentious pop music, of near meaningless lyrics, the non-existent profundity of which we are yet drawn to try and unravel.
Semolina Pilchards anyone?
It’s Alright Ma is not entirely open-ended, (I.e. meaningless). Its a broad satire of America’s burgeoning materialistic, individualistic consumer society at the time. Some of the lines are fairly clear, some are more allusive and interesting. It’s been quoted by Presidents, so it must have some rewards.
I Am the Walrus is more in the English tradition of Edward Lear and Lewis Carroll, than being simply ‘pretentious’.
It doesn’t require a degree in philosophy to understand it, but it does require a sense of humour
I wouldn’t class It’s alright ma as meaningless anyway.
But I think we look for a level of profundity in some pop songs which they frankly do not contain, and their authors are actually not capable of.
But see my other posts. I enjoy good pop music – but it has become way too dominant in our culture to the exclusion of art forms which are much more capable of deep thought or expression. What, after all, can you say in three minutes.
All art forms have become more commercial, particularly music.
Or perhaps those which are less easily commercialised have fallen out of the cultural picture.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Or perhaps those which are less easily commercialised have fallen out of the cultural picture.
All art forms have become more commercial, particularly music.
I wouldn’t class It’s alright ma as meaningless anyway.
But I think we look for a level of profundity in some pop songs which they frankly do not contain, and their authors are actually not capable of.
But see my other posts. I enjoy good pop music – but it has become way too dominant in our culture to the exclusion of art forms which are much more capable of deep thought or expression. What, after all, can you say in three minutes.
It’s Alright Ma is not entirely open-ended, (I.e. meaningless). Its a broad satire of America’s burgeoning materialistic, individualistic consumer society at the time. Some of the lines are fairly clear, some are more allusive and interesting. It’s been quoted by Presidents, so it must have some rewards.
I Am the Walrus is more in the English tradition of Edward Lear and Lewis Carroll, than being simply ‘pretentious’.
It doesn’t require a degree in philosophy to understand it, but it does require a sense of humour
Poetry may not be “reducible or literally descriptive,” but it should be meaningful. Stringing evocative lines together Willy nilly, isn’t enough.
Too often–I don’t say always, but too often–Dylan’s lyrics strikes me as an literary version of postmodern academese: it sounds impressive, but there’s no there there.
Oddly my mind was drawn to the post modern generator, an algorithm which generates post modern essays. One is drawn into them, and tries to decipher their meaning – even though they really have none, or have it by chance.
Oddly my mind was drawn to the post modern generator, an algorithm which generates post modern essays. One is drawn into them, and tries to decipher their meaning – even though they really have none, or have it by chance.
My degree was in philosophy, not accountancy.
Hmmmm – there are certainly poems which don’t give themselves all at once. There are others which have an aura of profundity about them though their meaning is elusive (eg the Rilke line “beauty is nothing but the beginning of terror”).
But that leaves the possibility, much exploited in more pretentious pop music, of near meaningless lyrics, the non-existent profundity of which we are yet drawn to try and unravel.
Semolina Pilchards anyone?
Poetry may not be “reducible or literally descriptive,” but it should be meaningful. Stringing evocative lines together Willy nilly, isn’t enough.
Too often–I don’t say always, but too often–Dylan’s lyrics strikes me as an literary version of postmodern academese: it sounds impressive, but there’s no there there.
I’m afraid I have to agree. I remember driving with friends in my twenties, listening to Dylan and thinking – a lot of this is just meaningless verbiage.
However, Tambourine Man, in contrast, is a great song.
Listen to Jerry Garcia’s version of Tangled Up in Blue. Changed how I listened to Dylan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxEsBAPleRY
It’s a brilliant interpretation, makes it a whole other song. Both versions have merit.
It’s a brilliant interpretation, makes it a whole other song. Both versions have merit.
Listen to Jerry Garcia’s version of Tangled Up in Blue. Changed how I listened to Dylan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxEsBAPleRY
They mean whatever you want to project onto them that’s the whole point of art. The same with Leonard Cohen’s lyrics.
If they don’t constrain the meaning that can be read into them, then they are literally meaningless.
And that is certainly not the whole point of art, not even of modern art.
Good point, but with modern art if it’s too obscure for the average person and has to be explained isn’t it meaningless?
Not really – lots of things are too difficult for the average person to understand. Philosophy, quantum physics, as well as some art. It doesn’t follow that they are meaningless though.
Not really – lots of things are too difficult for the average person to understand. Philosophy, quantum physics, as well as some art. It doesn’t follow that they are meaningless though.
Good point, but with modern art if it’s too obscure for the average person and has to be explained isn’t it meaningless?
If they don’t constrain the meaning that can be read into them, then they are literally meaningless.
And that is certainly not the whole point of art, not even of modern art.
Meaning? Why does it have to ‘mean’ something?
No need to be supercilious. You are not the arbitor of taste or meaning. So while they may not mean anything to you, but they do to others.
“Although the masters make the rules for the wise men and the fools, I’ve got nothing, Ma, to live up to.”
I’s rather meanspirited of you. I have to accept that lines of lyrics and poetry rarely mean much to me, I don’t understand them, but they often sound great and that’s enough.
I agree that Dylan’s lyrics are ambiguous, which doesn’t mean the Lana Del Ray’s lyrics are. I can’t say that I’m very aware of her output but of the songs I have heard, I like. This contrasts with Taylor swift whose output is boring to my ears. There’s an otherness to Lana’s music. Lyrics – don’t care.
What does any poem ‘mean’
It’s not reducible or literally descriptive.
Get back to your accounts and spreadsheets then.
I’m afraid I have to agree. I remember driving with friends in my twenties, listening to Dylan and thinking – a lot of this is just meaningless verbiage.
However, Tambourine Man, in contrast, is a great song.
They mean whatever you want to project onto them that’s the whole point of art. The same with Leonard Cohen’s lyrics.
Meaning? Why does it have to ‘mean’ something?
Sad eyed Lady of the lowlands to name but one. Polidori is on shaky ground.
And Kenny Buttrey’s drumming on “Sad Eyed Lady” is close to perfection.
And Kenny Buttrey’s drumming on “Sad Eyed Lady” is close to perfection.
“It’s only people’s games that you’ve got to dodge”
I am familiar with the lines. They don’t mean anything. The penny dropped when I reached the grand age of twenty-one.
Sad eyed Lady of the lowlands to name but one. Polidori is on shaky ground.
“It’s only people’s games that you’ve got to dodge”
I’m sorry, and you are….?
Reluctantly I’ll enter this debate:
I think we have put way more weight on the pop song as a medium than it is capable of carrying. It’s a simple medium with relatively limited scope for development. I would say that Leonard Cohen has pushed it lyrically as far as it can go without sinking into pretentiousness or meaninglessness.
That doesn’t mean it isn’t worth listening to, it is, but don’t expect too much in the way of profundity (as opposed to mock profundity). The great shame of modern life is not that there is pop music – it’s that it has become so completely dominant as the medium people actually take notice of.
Well what do you mean by ‘profound’?
Is Erlkonig by Schubert profound?
It’s just a song about an elf King.
Certain of the more verbal songwriters can carry deeper poetic and lyrical traditions into their songs, and that’s fine. Cohen, you mentioned. Robert Burns was a songwriter, so it’s nothing new
Well, of course, it has been argued that Schubert was strictly middle-brow.
With any song we can ask – is there more to this than meets the eye? We are asking whether there is more depth to it than meets the eye. For example, we might wonder if “It ain’t me babe” is about America rather than simply about a girlfriend.
What I’m saying is that an illusion of depth can be created through lyrics that on the surface appear meaningless or just odd. Whether this is done consciously by the writer is unclear (Bowie used cut ups to create this effect) – what is clear, however is that fans go to great lengths to decipher them, or bask in a kind of reflected glory because they “get it” while others don’t. There is a kind of snobbism about it.
Well, of course, it has been argued that Schubert was strictly middle-brow.
With any song we can ask – is there more to this than meets the eye? We are asking whether there is more depth to it than meets the eye. For example, we might wonder if “It ain’t me babe” is about America rather than simply about a girlfriend.
What I’m saying is that an illusion of depth can be created through lyrics that on the surface appear meaningless or just odd. Whether this is done consciously by the writer is unclear (Bowie used cut ups to create this effect) – what is clear, however is that fans go to great lengths to decipher them, or bask in a kind of reflected glory because they “get it” while others don’t. There is a kind of snobbism about it.
So true. Leonard Cohen said of his lyrics and poetry that since they were cryptic people were able to project onto them whatever they wanted to. I found that to be particulary true for me with The Stranger song. It became personal.
It’s true that if lyrics are too literal, too obvious in interpretation then they lose their appeal. But there really does have to be something there to interpret. Leonard Cohens songs are open to interpretation, but not infinitely.
Some, like Suzanne obviously, excel through their creation of a mood or atmosphere. And LC had a feeling for words which is genuinely rare in pop music.
Exhibit 1 – the last two lines in the following:
And he took you up in his aeroplane
Which he flew without any hands
And you cruised above the ribbons of rain
That drove the crowd from the stands
I meant to say that LC said of his earlier songs that they were empty and people could project onto them.I wouldn’t say that’s true of all of them and his cd The Future is certainly prescient. It’s hard to say if I have a fav but I find Jonathan singing ‘If it be your will” to be other worldly and tear inducing and of course ‘Hallelulah’ will be Leonard’s legacy if nothing else is.
I meant to say that LC said of his earlier songs that they were empty and people could project onto them.I wouldn’t say that’s true of all of them and his cd The Future is certainly prescient. It’s hard to say if I have a fav but I find Jonathan singing ‘If it be your will” to be other worldly and tear inducing and of course ‘Hallelulah’ will be Leonard’s legacy if nothing else is.
It’s true that if lyrics are too literal, too obvious in interpretation then they lose their appeal. But there really does have to be something there to interpret. Leonard Cohens songs are open to interpretation, but not infinitely.
Some, like Suzanne obviously, excel through their creation of a mood or atmosphere. And LC had a feeling for words which is genuinely rare in pop music.
Exhibit 1 – the last two lines in the following:
And he took you up in his aeroplane
Which he flew without any hands
And you cruised above the ribbons of rain
That drove the crowd from the stands
Well what do you mean by ‘profound’?
Is Erlkonig by Schubert profound?
It’s just a song about an elf King.
Certain of the more verbal songwriters can carry deeper poetic and lyrical traditions into their songs, and that’s fine. Cohen, you mentioned. Robert Burns was a songwriter, so it’s nothing new
So true. Leonard Cohen said of his lyrics and poetry that since they were cryptic people were able to project onto them whatever they wanted to. I found that to be particulary true for me with The Stranger song. It became personal.
The answer is blowing in the wind ?
Or maybe down on Highway 51 !
Bob already told you, it ain’t him babe.
Oh gosh one could go on forever! Such beautiful music. And what about Judy Collins and Joan Baez. I had the pleasue of interviewing Judy, she’s one of my favs who’s managed to keep singing thanks to vocal cord surgery. So many singers don’t know when to stop and become an embarressment.
Oh gosh one could go on forever! Such beautiful music. And what about Judy Collins and Joan Baez. I had the pleasue of interviewing Judy, she’s one of my favs who’s managed to keep singing thanks to vocal cord surgery. So many singers don’t know when to stop and become an embarressment.
Great artists channel something transcendental and for a while (actually quite a while) Dylan did. If you’ve lost the ability to connect with that, then you’re in a dark place imho.
No dark places, just because I don’t “connect” with Dylan.
“One man’s ceiling is another man’s floor.”
No dark places, just because I don’t “connect” with Dylan.
“One man’s ceiling is another man’s floor.”
And Dylan’s music still hold up today particularly with The Band.
“I’ll stay forever young” We can but clutch, but we will fail!
When I was about twenty, or so, a friend lent me records by, amongst many others, Robert Johnson, Bessie Smith and George Gershwin. I was annoyed with myself for having wasted my youth on pretentious tosh. The one “pop” performer who I admire to this day, is Kate Bush. (Who knows what vices will be attributed to me!)
I will have to re-enter the conversation if there’s any more Kate Bush chat – Robert Johnson was a sublime and slightly accidental artist, and (notoriously) so shy he wanted to record in another room from the engineer. He would have found the need to express your art by wearing a tea dress and waving your arms about quite baffling, and so do I. But I suppose these days we can all keep cultural opposites comfortably in mind.
11
11
I will have to re-enter the conversation if there’s any more Kate Bush chat – Robert Johnson was a sublime and slightly accidental artist, and (notoriously) so shy he wanted to record in another room from the engineer. He would have found the need to express your art by wearing a tea dress and waving your arms about quite baffling, and so do I. But I suppose these days we can all keep cultural opposites comfortably in mind.
“I’ll stay forever young” We can but clutch, but we will fail!
When I was about twenty, or so, a friend lent me records by, amongst many others, Robert Johnson, Bessie Smith and George Gershwin. I was annoyed with myself for having wasted my youth on pretentious tosh. The one “pop” performer who I admire to this day, is Kate Bush. (Who knows what vices will be attributed to me!)
It doesn’t say much for Kathleen Stock’s article that the one comment that’s attracted real attention is a criticism of Bob Dylan!
I prodded a hornet’s nest
Indeed you did!! Well done. It seems it was a blessing in disguise. We’re all bonding over Dylan!
Indeed you did!! Well done. It seems it was a blessing in disguise. We’re all bonding over Dylan!
There’s not that much to say about Del Rey, she ‘aint that deep. Kathleen said it all and more.
What more can one say about Del Rey? Kathleen said it all.
I prodded a hornet’s nest
There’s not that much to say about Del Rey, she ‘aint that deep. Kathleen said it all and more.
What more can one say about Del Rey? Kathleen said it all.
Well, I hope your rabbits die. Bob Dylan has been contriving odd insights into the human condition since his late teens, and still does; and he continues to find unexpected melodies, rhythms and phrasings with astonishing creativity. In his 80s. Ok don’t go to his live shows now, but it’s a mistake to call his music meaningless, and I’m happy to see you outside about this.
Darkness at the break of noon
Shadows even the silver spoon
The hand-made blade, the child’s balloon
Eclipses both the sun and moon
To understand, you know too soon
There is no sense in trying
I’m sorry, and you are….?
Reluctantly I’ll enter this debate:
I think we have put way more weight on the pop song as a medium than it is capable of carrying. It’s a simple medium with relatively limited scope for development. I would say that Leonard Cohen has pushed it lyrically as far as it can go without sinking into pretentiousness or meaninglessness.
That doesn’t mean it isn’t worth listening to, it is, but don’t expect too much in the way of profundity (as opposed to mock profundity). The great shame of modern life is not that there is pop music – it’s that it has become so completely dominant as the medium people actually take notice of.
The answer is blowing in the wind ?
Or maybe down on Highway 51 !
Bob already told you, it ain’t him babe.
Great artists channel something transcendental and for a while (actually quite a while) Dylan did. If you’ve lost the ability to connect with that, then you’re in a dark place imho.
And Dylan’s music still hold up today particularly with The Band.
It doesn’t say much for Kathleen Stock’s article that the one comment that’s attracted real attention is a criticism of Bob Dylan!
“Lana Del Rey’s dissident femininity. She embodies the dark underground of female experience.”
Well, there you go. Whatever sells records. I fear that Kathleen has invested too much in a pop singer. I understand: When I was a teenager, I thought that Bob Dylan had something to tell me. He didn’t. He just strung empty phrases together and allowed me to contrive meaning from that which was meaningless.
It is probably a sign of old age, but I am completely baffled by how anyone can see anything interesting or meaningful in today’s bland cultural landscape. The music of Lana del Rey, Taylor swift et.al is corporate packaged drek, mediocre and boring. Today’s movies are not much better and television, though there is now more of it than ever, is mostly unwatchable. This is particularly acute for boomers who had the richest culture in the history of the world. From Buddy Holly and Elvis to The Beatles and the Stones, the Grateful Dead, the Doors and the Jefferson Airplane, from Charlie Parker and Brubeck to Miles and Trane, the music of the 50’s and 60’s was consistently groundbreaking and brilliant. I weep for today’s children who have to endure the weepy ennui of singers like del Ray and Billie Ellish. We led a cultural revolution but today kids are just waiting around to be turned into robots by their corporate overlords.
Can I get an OK!
Yes, OK. Like you I don’t watch much TV or listen to current pop music. But I enjoy Kathleen Stock’s style, even when she writes about a pop musician I have never heard of and probably wouldn’t listen to. I might like Stock’s writing even more if she wrote about subjects of greater interest to me, like contemporary philosophy and philosophers.
I enjoy reading Stock too.
I enjoy reading Stock too.
its not realistic to push the envelope of modern music to the same extent as was possible in the 60’s for reasons of it being a fairly finite medium. Decent songs are still made notwithstanding.
I could just as well say Dark Star on Live Dead was boring. After Bathing at Baxters has some highs and lows and was maybe groundbreaking at the time but a lot of modern rock and some pop is worthy of merit. Lana del Rey does have a certain style and songwriting quality even though a lot is samey. There’s an awful lot more independent and ”corporate free” music today compared to the 60’s and 70’s thanks to Internet. Growing up in the 60’s and 70’s was a great time for listening to music but I’m not stuck there. There are still great inventive and exciting bands around today, and Lana del Rey is alright even though I’m not a fan.
There’s been plenty of research to show that the music that we hear when we are young is the music we like most… for most people. Then there are people that continually seek out new music. In fact there is superb music in many styles made very year – finding it is another thing. I’m fortunate that this is my occupation – look up “the in memory of john peel show” if you want to hear a broad range of new music which should suit the seeking type.
Ah, John Peel that rings a bell.
Ah, John Peel that rings a bell.
There’s been plenty of research to show that the music that we hear when we are young is the music we like most… for most people. Then there are people that continually seek out new music. In fact there is superb music in many styles made very year – finding it is another thing. I’m fortunate that this is my occupation – look up “the in memory of john peel show” if you want to hear a broad range of new music which should suit the seeking type.
Telly did well in the 70s and 80s, at least in Blighty. Dad’s Army, Civilisation, Brideshead Revisited…
It was a bit top down, sit down and pay attention but they did give us art
Yes, you got an uptick from me. I was lucky to have enjoyed the best music ever from the sixties through the eighties, all still so wonderful to listen to, still sing along to(kinda) and still dance to(kinda). The Taylor Swift and Beyonce thing is beyond me. The amount of money paid for these tickets is mind- blowing, and apparently Swift has actually positively affected the economy in places where she plays.
It’s probably more that we are at the decline end of a cultural cycle. Pop music is no longer fresh and new, nor going through an obvious period of development and sophistication. We are really still post 60s in many ways – our clothes, our interests, our music. It may be that kids are genuinely waiting for something new.
Lana Del Ray is good, 1989 was also good and not everything is terrible. You didn’t lead a “cultural revolution” – it was packaged for you and you bought it like a hapless consumer. If you were familiar with the influence of America’s intelligence services on your “groundbreaking” pop culture you’d likely spiral into a deeper depression. Also LOL at “richest culture in the history of the world”.
Yes, OK. Like you I don’t watch much TV or listen to current pop music. But I enjoy Kathleen Stock’s style, even when she writes about a pop musician I have never heard of and probably wouldn’t listen to. I might like Stock’s writing even more if she wrote about subjects of greater interest to me, like contemporary philosophy and philosophers.
its not realistic to push the envelope of modern music to the same extent as was possible in the 60’s for reasons of it being a fairly finite medium. Decent songs are still made notwithstanding.
I could just as well say Dark Star on Live Dead was boring. After Bathing at Baxters has some highs and lows and was maybe groundbreaking at the time but a lot of modern rock and some pop is worthy of merit. Lana del Rey does have a certain style and songwriting quality even though a lot is samey. There’s an awful lot more independent and ”corporate free” music today compared to the 60’s and 70’s thanks to Internet. Growing up in the 60’s and 70’s was a great time for listening to music but I’m not stuck there. There are still great inventive and exciting bands around today, and Lana del Rey is alright even though I’m not a fan.
Telly did well in the 70s and 80s, at least in Blighty. Dad’s Army, Civilisation, Brideshead Revisited…
It was a bit top down, sit down and pay attention but they did give us art
Yes, you got an uptick from me. I was lucky to have enjoyed the best music ever from the sixties through the eighties, all still so wonderful to listen to, still sing along to(kinda) and still dance to(kinda). The Taylor Swift and Beyonce thing is beyond me. The amount of money paid for these tickets is mind- blowing, and apparently Swift has actually positively affected the economy in places where she plays.
It’s probably more that we are at the decline end of a cultural cycle. Pop music is no longer fresh and new, nor going through an obvious period of development and sophistication. We are really still post 60s in many ways – our clothes, our interests, our music. It may be that kids are genuinely waiting for something new.
Lana Del Ray is good, 1989 was also good and not everything is terrible. You didn’t lead a “cultural revolution” – it was packaged for you and you bought it like a hapless consumer. If you were familiar with the influence of America’s intelligence services on your “groundbreaking” pop culture you’d likely spiral into a deeper depression. Also LOL at “richest culture in the history of the world”.
It is probably a sign of old age, but I am completely baffled by how anyone can see anything interesting or meaningful in today’s bland cultural landscape. The music of Lana del Rey, Taylor swift et.al is corporate packaged drek, mediocre and boring. Today’s movies are not much better and television, though there is now more of it than ever, is mostly unwatchable. This is particularly acute for boomers who had the richest culture in the history of the world. From Buddy Holly and Elvis to The Beatles and the Stones, the Grateful Dead, the Doors and the Jefferson Airplane, from Charlie Parker and Brubeck to Miles and Trane, the music of the 50’s and 60’s was consistently groundbreaking and brilliant. I weep for today’s children who have to endure the weepy ennui of singers like del Ray and Billie Ellish. We led a cultural revolution but today kids are just waiting around to be turned into robots by their corporate overlords.
Can I get an OK!
I’ve always found her interesting. Whether she is authentic or doing a great job of creating an interesting persona I don’t care. I bought Born to Die for myself and a friend in a pretend indie Manchester music shop (now owned by HMV), and whilst queuing with the 2 CD’s the self-righteous man behind the till was telling the customer being served at the counter how everyone who buys her stuff is a an idiot, none of them know who she really is and on and on. I cheerfully dropped the 2 CD’s on the counter with a big smile. Nothing worse than a pretentious music snob.
I’ve always found her interesting. Whether she is authentic or doing a great job of creating an interesting persona I don’t care. I bought Born to Die for myself and a friend in a pretend indie Manchester music shop (now owned by HMV), and whilst queuing with the 2 CD’s the self-righteous man behind the till was telling the customer being served at the counter how everyone who buys her stuff is a an idiot, none of them know who she really is and on and on. I cheerfully dropped the 2 CD’s on the counter with a big smile. Nothing worse than a pretentious music snob.
I never really cared for the music (except for some of her first few songs). Not that it was bad or good – I just don’t care for music that much. But I thought the article was beautifully written and appreciated how you painted Lana Del Ray so well. Thank you Kathleen.