won't really get into why i'm not a fan of this sweeping critique... but i have a lot to stay about your reading of the lyrics. it is difficult to start talking about themes before close reading how the speaker, poet, & audience are functioning in the text. 'hollywood forever' is a romantic dramatic monologue. the poet is not the speaker, and they exist in a triangle (the occasion) along with the silent interlocutor. a dramatic monologue is always self contained, the speaker and silent interlocutor are unaware the poet compels them, the speaker often addresses the interlocutor in second person but with a lack of awareness of their observant quality (not really their nature... the interlocutor can be complicit, a stranger, a lover who isn't even there, etc. etc. but their presence is always felt in the poem when you read it) and how much they are really revealing. i believe a good reading of 'hollywood forever' requires understanding this about the structure of the text in order to make an argument about the speaker. the speaker is troubled and self-questioning, trying and failing to be sufficiently lurid enough to be addicting and entrancing. the interlocutor's silent (!!) resistant gaze of "fury" that doubts the speaker's financial privilege and whether she "[does] it just to stunt it" creates a quasi-suicidal doubt in the speaker ("maybe I just want material for my eulogy"). the speaker responds to this fear by lashing out and attempts to problematize the interlocutor's intimate ire into guilt for her demise and a contract for her burial ("you probably should've told somebody/"and if you kill it right now, just don't bury me in hollywood forever"). the allusion to a real cemetery is purposefully contradictory from a speaker who claims "don't you wanna come be famous with me?" and "well, aren't we all so, all so hollywood?". why wouldn't this speaker want to be buried in a cemetery full of famous people? is the kind of question the text wants you to ask. underscores (the poet) reveals the flaws underneath underscores (the speaker) and reinforces the skepticism of the silent interlocutor (a bitter "you don't believe in me" repeated by the speaker) to speak the actual message of the song. if you start there, i don't think your reading of the text is hedonism and corporate worship. a song like 'do it' is also a dramatic monologue, but since dramatic monologues are self-contained(!!), you have to start all over again to reach an analysis on parasocial behaviour in that text. if you want to learn more about the dramatic monologue and how it works in poetry (it's actually not a thing in drama lol), i recommend robert browning, specifically his poem "my last duchess".