Joanna Newsom - Have One On Me (RIP blogs)

kate is so fucking street real

oh word

is this album any good

― puff puff post (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Wednesday, February 24, 2010 12:48 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

ya it is

the only vocal stylings I have a problem with are the laddish affectations of British indie frontmen who throw in 'oh-oh-oh-ohhh' or 'yeeeeah' every other breath, in order to fill the space where a cutting lyrical sentiment could be, and doubtless to bolster the most thinly-veiled empty-head-onism youth, minor fame and a recording contract can buy. it is akin to watching a rapist pluck a dandelion for his next victim

i wonder what kind of monster you will be at 40

pluckage

wtf are you even talking about, lj

got y'all a dandelion

lj u are my boo

This kind of shit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlMfV7A3V00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVLqo7C-WwA

All of the above are sex-offending morons.

Oh Christ.

If Joanna looked like Beth Ditto this thread would only have five messages posted to it.

― mottdeterre, Wednesday, February 24, 2010 11:44 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

ridiculous double reverse sexist garbage imo btw

CAD is OTM btw - that statement didn't get lampooned quite enough

What the album does contain is more than two hours of exquisitely beautiful songs over three discs, performed with a new singing voice after the old one quite literally disappeared.

Newsom developed vocal cord nodes in spring 2009, and all that came out when she opened her mouth “was like the hiss on opening a Coke can”. For two months she went around with a notebook, forbidden from singing, speaking or even crying. “In fact crying was the absolutely worst thing I could do to my voice. So I was constantly telling myself, don’t feel, don’t feel, don’t feel.” On recovering, she mourned when she realised that her old voice was never coming back, though she says she must give “full disclosure” and admit that further vocal modifications have been deliberate.

so yes this is going to convert a lot of h8rs--her voice is like totally different

Okay, no, sorry. You don't to call anyone "sexist" two posts after calling musicians you don't like sex offenders. Fuck off with that.

(xpost)

bless those nodes

anyway what I am saying is let JN sing how she goddamn pleases and try to keep your visceral reactions as a matter of personal taste and not an assault upon her character. the only genuinely offensive voices are those modulated to convey empty feeling, hence my post upthread

lol jon you do not understand - I get to do what I like, especially if on both occasions it's 'holding to account the objectification of women' - that issue doesn't have a subjective position IMO

Unless you have actual proof that those guys are sex offenders (and maybe they are, couldn't give a fuck about either of them enough to know) then, no, you don't get to toss that accusation out there for "holding to account the objectification of women".

anyway what I am saying is let JN sing how she goddamn pleases and try to keep your visceral reactions as a matter of personal taste and not an assault upon her character

I'm kind of curious about this, actually: when the objection to her voice is equiv. to 'the guitar on this record is never tuned' (which "she has really annoying tone colour, is nasal, is often flagrantly out of tune*" kind of is) is it really a personal reaction? aren't there kinds of immediate aesthetic judgement which aren't?

*cf. 'sadie', 'three little babes', 'inflammatory writ', 'yarn and glue'

But yes, her voice is miles better on this album, if you ask me. Love it.

it took me soooo long to adjust to ys because (among other things) i thought she'd started singing too 'well'

i dont know about the flagrantly out of tune bit, but "annoying" is definitely a "personal reaction"

I return to ILX to find that mildly caustic turns of phrase have been outlawed? Who's running this show? They're probably not *actual* sex offenders, certainly not convicted, but their music incites sexism. I'll forgive you for not giving a fuck because those songs weren't huge in the States, but they certainly were here, and from a feminist (read: sensible) perspective, that's worrying/problematic. The singers' mannerisms go a long way towards creating an atmosphere of sexual predation. Maybe you hear it completely differently.

Mr. West, whose name I am calling out because shit got heated enough, it is interesting, as long as you can provide an explanation as to why she is singing *WRONGLY*, as opposed to 'differently/uniquely/annoyingly'. What is she doing, that is 'wrong' and improvable? On a purely objective level? Bear in mind that 'often flagrantly out of tune' could well be an aesthetic choice, hence subjective, ditto 'nasal'.

The singers' mannerisms go a long way towards creating an atmosphere of sexual predation.

Quoted for absolute fucking ignorance. I mean, really, you honestly believe this shit? You aren't even worth debating with.

go pluck yourself

It's threatening laddish assertion (forced swagger) in songs about desirable females - I can't read it in any other way. Take a chill pill, dude! Everything will be happier in ten minutes.

>>ridiculous double reverse sexist garbage imo btw

I meant it as lookist garbage.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_hZPrHSWoKvY/Sro63Ss2p6I/AAAAAAAABTk/Ppv2HQlao4g/s400/SG.Pluckers+Wings.dracoLLL.jpg

xxpost

whose name I am calling out because shit got heated enough

i'm pretty sure this is the first time this has happened to me on ilx, awesome

ok right:

i. 'annoying' was the wrong choice of word; pretend i said 'really sharp tone colour' though 'sharp' isn't really the right word

ii. i sort of distrust the logic of "it's okay to be singing out of tune as long as it is deliberate and you could do better if you wanted to"

iii. my claim is that if yr aesthetic choices involve a lot of deliberate error, people are perfectly justified to say "well, i don't like error, and i don't care if it is deliberate" - cf. bad free verse, novels written in one paragraph, out of focus photos - & i think this is a category of objection which on some level goes beyond mere personal taste

who gave marc loi the jagg's login?

This is JN's best-sung album in the same sense that Nashville Skyline is Dylan's best-sung album.

i really didn't like her voice until this record, but i don't think it was out of tune, just extreme, but then again i didn't listen to it enough to know for sure

I'd hate to hear what lj thinks of Mick Jagger and any other sixties rock singer ever that had "swagger" when singing about a desirable female.

there's the odd belter or bellowed moment where it's very obvious/deliberate (listed these earlier) ; also moments where she goes squeaky and misses the note

xpost i'd hate it if maybe LJ thinking modern brit indie was a bit rapey maybe had to become its own thread and not bother us here: that would be terrible

"You call that singing?"

I'll deal with iii because that's where the meat of the argument is (although 'tone colour' is something I think varies naturally rather than intentionally - prove me wrong)...

my claim is that if yr aesthetic choices involve a lot of deliberate error, people are perfectly justified to say "well, i don't like error, and i don't care if it is deliberate" - cf. bad free verse, novels written in one paragraph, out of focus photos - & i think this is a category of objection which on some level goes beyond mere personal taste

The issue here is whether Newsom is making errors, or valid musical choices. Unless she's failing to do something she's trying to do, I'd never accuse her of error. Is she failing to do something she's trying to do? I know some artistic choices can sabotage others, and thus the failure is that of creating a cogent artistic statement - I'd venture to say that if she does make an error, this might be it. But how? I think her voice works well enough with her instrument.

generally dislike the Stones fwiw - and yeah, they're pretty monstrous when it comes to women, although this doesn't have much to do with my opinion of them. at least they were a little more straightforward about their sexual wants. didn't sugar-coat it in false sensitivity.

xpost i'd hate it if maybe LJ thinking modern brit indie was a bit rapey maybe had to become its own thread and not bother us here: that would be terrible

Nah, pretty much not even worth the discourse at this point. Back to Newsom talk please.

what are you guys doing to the great thread of love

can't we get back to the edenic time on this thread when we were all united in lols @ unicorns

gotta get back to the garden guys

generally dislike the Stones fwiw - and yeah, they're pretty monstrous when it comes to women, although this doesn't have much to do with my opinion of them. at least they were a little more straightforward about their sexual wants. didn't sugar-coat it in false sensitivity.

― joagga lousome (acoleuthic), Wednesday, February 24, 2010 6:36 PM (49 seconds ago) Bookmark

Moral: you have to be creepy. You have to make your fuck-want clear from the beginning, even if you choose to go smooth and disguise it as "romantic interest". I understand that the romantic interest route is very popular.

here I'll start:

http://unicorns.wizardio.com/images/unicorn.jpg

A THIMBLE'S WORTH OF MILKY LOLS

http://i.friendfeed.com/d089b9a8bdd910dbdf258265e09014ac822484fe

i kind of think of this every time someone complains about her mentioning sex

http://curvature.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/fiona-4.jpg

What is she doing, that is 'wrong' and improvable?

The stranglulated nasal whine that was putting a ton of forced stress on her vocal chords is what gave her nodes; the new way she is singing is freer, more open and healthier. You can tell that entirely from the timbre of her voice on older records vs that new song Iposted.

btw weren't you supposed to be banned from ILX until you finished grad school?

this thread needed LJ, grad school be damned

http://jhstrega7.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/the-killing-of-the-unicorn.jpg

Cheers Dan, that's a pretty good explanation, although it's more of a technical point than a criticism of her art (although I appreciate that for you it's that too).

I uh...got the batsignal, what can I say. Plus I figured that a forced ILX ban wasn't something I needed; it's a bit like an admission of defeat, and an unnecessary measure. I just need to edit myself from now on. Keep it low-key. Done with great success thus far, I'd say.

http://www.silverlocusts.com/Graphics/dandelion_book_cover.jpg

hey, am i really liking about 1/2 of this album!

the other 1/2 does not offend me. have no idea why her voice offends. irritates, i guess. offends?

reflexive diatribes against "ivy league"/"privilege" (however they might apply to J.N.) = some straight up B.S.

did you play the clip of one of her old songs with her old way of singing?

mills college is sort of a west coast seven sisters i guess

The stranglulated nasal whine that was putting a ton of forced stress on her vocal chords is what gave her nodes;

was wondering about whether or not this was the case

She was probably singing from her throat rather than her diaphragm, a common mistake made by untrained singers that can easily lead to thin, reedy tone and jacked up vocal cords.

When I saw her perform on the Ys tour, she seemed to have this under much better control, but I guess it was too little too late.