Yours is a thoughtful analysis, but in my opinion it ultimately misses the target by reading too literally into the evidently multilayered nature of pop music — or popular culture, in general — a failing much Marxist critique is apparently prone to…
A degree of personal disclosure is in order here: I am a fan of Lana Del Rey, at least as much as a somewhat weathered middle aged white guy with a broad scope of musical preferences can be. I am also (have been all my grown life) a socialist.
But I’m not writing this to elaborate on my politics. I’m not even intent on starting a debate. I felt compelled to comment because I have crossed paths time and time again with this kind of misreading.
Let’s start with the subjective: to this middle-class European music fan, Lana Del Rey pop character doesn’t come across as particularly high class or refined — her plastic surgery reinvention of herself, after some breed of vintage Hollywood glamour diva crossed with contemporary starlet socialite, invested in slightly anachronistic languid tunes, and depicted in videos that try to illustrate the american dream of upward mobility through capital accumulation, as instantiated by the ostentation of flashy fashion and overly expensive consumer goods — comes through as rather naively ‘nouveau riche' at best, when not downright trashy (it’s also not her exclusive: hip hop, for example, is rife with it).
A more substantive aspect is also on display in her music videos: please note how most male counterparts in those seldom fit stereotypes of the successful/wealthy male specimen, being in fact much closer to the tattooed biker or working class stud types. As for the lyrics content, thousands of similar examples exist and they can either be viewed as significant as a whole, or else Lana’s are nothing more than a somewhat more articulate access mantra of current day pop industry.
In the end, for me, Lana’s musical persona illustrates better an updated concept of Americana than most the country-ish performers or settings usually associated with the term. But, to be able to clearly distinguish such aspect, a degree of both distancing and irony is required. And that, I’m afraid, is what’s missing from your literal approach… isn’t polysemy what we should be looking for in (even the lower forms of) art?
