Bouncing into Graceland

beepbeeprobot:

newsweek:

equalitymyth:

jesseellison:

“I wonder what it would be like if I were a male rock star? Maybe I just could be like ‘fuck it’ and keep someone hanging there. But, I don’t know… It just doesn’t feel right. And I definitely don’t have groupies. No, the evening always ends with me and my friend in my hotel room watching romantic comedies going, ‘We’re never getting married.’”

This was fun.

In which Florence Welch tells Newsweek about the dark side of fame.

HERE IS THE PART WHERE I TAKE ISSUE WITH THIS ARTICLE!

Preface: I love Florence.  Lungs is gorgeous and heartbreaking and wonderful.  My issue is with the way this article is written.

This article focuses overwhelmingly on her style, as here:

But now wandering up and down the Bowery, her hair pinned in a messy-chic pile against the nape of her neck, wearing a Victorian-era high-necked ivory blouse, slim black pants, and flats, she resembles a lost little girl—like some slightly overgrown orphan from another era.

First of all, it’s not a Victorian-era blouse unless it was made in the 1890s or so, and if it were I’m willing to bet it’s falling to pieces.  Secondly, when I see someone wearing that, I don’t think “lost little girl” or “overgrown orphan from another era.”  I think “hipster.”  Not as perjorative, mind, but that is very distinctly hipster styling.  But then the article tries to frame this kind of hipsterness as unique?

After an invasion of cookie cutter pop stars, Welch swept in with remarkable force. With the face of a Rembrandt painting—all auburn waves and milky-white skin—and timeless but utterly unique sense of style (you’ll never catch her in a dress made of meat) the 25 year-old Brit was quickly adopted as the fashion world’s new darling.

Okay, so this is obviously trying to cast shade on Lady Gaga.  Look, I enjoy Lady Gaga, but I honestly do enjoy Florence more.  I get that.  Lady Gaga is also not the second coming.  But seriously?  The one, overwhelming thing you can say about Lady Gaga is that her fashion is unique.  Not unique like “victorian-era high-neck blouse, cigarette pants, flats, messy bun” which I have seen on NO END of hipsters, but unique like egg full of smoke, meat dress, dressed in drag unique.  What the fuck is wrong with you when you call someone’s style unique when I’ve seen it a hundred times, and then cast shade on Lady Gaga?  Obviously Lady Gaga is not without her missteps, and fuck knows meat clothing is not a trend that needs to pick up, but she’s not in the goddamn hipster uniform.  Lady Gaga does make cookie-cutter pop music, but her style is pretty much anything but, for better or for worse.

Look, maybe her fashion is unique.  I don’t follow the runways, so I don’t know what she wears during her shows or what Gucci made for her or made inspired by her, and I don’t know what she wears during her shows.  The only window you give me into her style, Daily Beast, is a lot of big names and a description of a fairly bland hipster uniform.  But what I do know that she sure as shit doesn’t make headlines with her outfits the way Lady Gaga does.  That’s kind of a definining characteristic of “unique”—no one else is doing it, or no one has done it before.  I get it, Daily Beast, you’re over Lady Gaga, Judas isn’t as good as Bad Romance, and you wanna make sweet lyrical love to Florence.  Me too!  But you just make yourself look real dumb when you try to do it this way.

Lay off the God-Ga, or Melissa will find you.

No, but seriously, she is 110% right.