Lana Del Rey

that's what i'm getting at.

i had to stop reading HRO, which i otherwise enjoyed, because he was especially cruel/mocking towards women, and it just wouldn't stop. even with the arcade fire, who i don't care about -- win was always portrayed as being regine's pussywhipped little ball and chain. ugh.

HRO is fuckin tedious imo and faintly depressing to me for reasons i can't quite elucidate.

i feel like i've seen plenty of males artists who are awkward and a mess of nerves onstage but they don't get the cat power/LDR treatment.

re: get bent on sexism

That's certainly true in general, but I don't know that it has much specific relevance WR2 the overall tone of harsh negativity in responses occasioned by LDR's SNL performance. I mean, I'm sure that many of those responses were delivered in brutally sexist language (at least on the internet), because that's how people are (especially on the internet), but I suspect that the overall negativity-level is more a product of genuine awfulness than of gender. Cuz that performance really was awful.

Then again, we'd have to find a comparably hyped and unknown new male artist who recently delivered a comparably horrid "pleased to meet you" live performance to make a meaningful comparison. The only close comparison I can think of is Salem's 2010 Fader Fort performance, and maybe that makes your case more than mine (female member, queerness).

I really don't understand why LDR's lips are part of the discourse at all, everybody has lips. it's gross and makes me think of ed gein

everybody has lips. it's gross

Agreed!

i feel like i've seen plenty of males artists who are awkward and a mess of nerves onstage but they don't get the cat power/LDR treatment.

lol you mean like the wavves guy

I really don't understand why LDR's lips are part of the discourse at all

maybe it's part of what courtney love once referred to as "and she's not even pretty" syndrome.

not to open the courtney love can of worms here.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SHtepaTecT4/TTII-CbKpNI/AAAAAAAABuc/pvI9PTF3Cpk/s1600/spinal-tap.jpg

It's not so much the treatment of any one particular female artist but the disparity with which this stuff happens vis a vis male artists.

There's an... intimacy to the criticism a lot of the time, as if the writer is describing a one night stand to his friends the next day.

i feel like i've seen plenty of males artists who are awkward and a mess of nerves onstage but they don't get the cat power/LDR treatment.

― omar little, Tuesday, January 17, 2012 4:15 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

cat power and elliott smith were coming up at the same time, and i remember reading/hearing exactly the same complaints about the stage presence of both.

elliot smith was "intimate" and "personal"

why does everyone focus on courtney love's worms

in a certain way sexism is all over this incident. we have an artist whose entire act is either enacting particular sexist tropes about female passivity, male domination, a whole dynamic of neglect + pining, or at the very least problematizing + dialoguing that it. she records one single that that gets her a lot of attention. i'm not going to pretend that my love of that single has nothing to do w/ gender + sex. i found her performance in that video really sexy, i found her vocal performance really arresting, and titillating. that's often going on w/ music of both genders. partially due to the attention she got from that video (a video that was itself sexually problematic, and attention that was certainly sexualized) she was given an incredibly rare opportunity for such an inexperienced artist -- playing on SNL.

now we have a notably terrible performance from that artist. part of what made the performance terrible is what i wrote about in a post above: that instead of seeming confident, in control, savvy she came off as amateurish, naive, overwhelmed. part of the problem is that instead of being sexy she was almost childish. so it's not like sex + gender aren't appropriate here. but i think calling criticism here 'sexism' without explicating exactly how sex fits into the whole thing, is just an intellectual duck.

then on top of it, there are actual technical stuff about her performance that were imperfect. but yes, if she were someone else, maybe someone who had different dynamics in her song, or someone coming w/ a wider range of material + tropes, the reaction would be much different. but this reaction has as much to do with how she was marketed upfront.

I mean, I don't give a crap about her or her music, which I find boring to an unlistenable degree,

lol interesting thread to jump in on then

also, i remember reading a lot of criticism of Axl Rose's erratic, terrible + truncated performances during a recent tour

re: Tim F

agree completely that responses to female artists are often stunningly sexist, even when they're positive. i'm only arguing that the general negativity of responses to that SNL performance probably isn't a product of sexism in and of itself.

elliot smith was "intimate" and "personal"

― rocognise gnome (remy bean), Tuesday, January 17, 2012 4:21 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

well, that's the thing. more cartoonishly masculine rock and pop acts (take AC/DC as an extreme example) don't cultivate the illusion of intimacy in their music or performance. therefore, it's perhaps understandable that they aren't criticized from a position of implied intimacy.

not intimacy, just sex.

dashboard confessional, bright eyes + other emo performers who did intimate performances often got mocked.

that says a lot about audiences. "haha you let your guard down... faggot."

that's some leftover junior high school shit.

but i think calling criticism here 'sexism' without explicating exactly how sex fits into the whole thing, is just an intellectual duck.

I don't think anyone would disagree with your basic point ^^^^ mordy. But that's because using the s word without explication is likely to be an intellectual duck in almost any context.

Also while it's incontravertible that LDR plays with sex and gender, it's a lot harder for female artists to avoid being framed in these terms, even if the frame is "rejection of x".

e.g. Ani DiFranco arguably could be the anti LDR in this regard but still gets (or used to get) talked about in terms that seemed to be underscored by the considerations "would I sleep with her? would she sleep with me?" So while LDR sets up certain expectations that she likely will be punished for not fulfilling, I don't think she has the option of not playing the game. And I think it'd be useful for people to keep this in mind before justifying any and all criticisms (and forms of criticism) on the basis that "she asked for it."

Not that I really think anyone in this thread is wanting to do that, but I don't see this as an either/or game.

ime 'edgy' or 'new' music aesthetically privilages hypermasculinity, "feminine vulnerable" and all manner of genderfuckery from male performers. it's a big tent. but it really can't deal on a nuanced scale with anything more complicated than virgin/whore/virgin-whore from female performers.not to say that the performers themselves aren't capable of more fine-toothed sexualities, but rather that but that the criticism and discussion of female performers who "engage" (heavy scare quotes) with their sexuality is often kind of flat and stereotyped/stereotyping, at least in popular discussion.

i'm not sure about that. it might seem that way bc we're commenting on a ldr thread but i can think of many many female artists working in popular music + in more niche genres who are able to do things that are much more nuanced. idk if i have a lot more to say about this, but i will say that Kathleen Edwards is performing on Dave Letterman tnite and as i think she's one of the most amazing musical artists making music today i highly recommend everyone check her out.

exactly, tim f. "playing with" sex and gender isn't necessarily the same as "painting herself into a corner with being intimate/vulnerable/a damsel in distress." i listen to an ldr song like "you can be the boss" and i hear her as the one in control, the one who's kinda making fun of the guy with malt liquor on his breath. she'll fuck him anyway. because people in "control" get to make that choice. cue janet jackson.

"it's you / it's you / it's all for you. / everything i do."

i haven't heard "you can be the boss." i really only know the video games song very well. but that song does paint her into that corner imho.

I'm in his favorite sun dress
Watching me get undressed
Take that body downtown

I say you the bestest
Lean in for a big kiss
Put his favorite perfume on

The whole song really depicts her as an object of male/listener attraction - explicitly so. The clothing she wears is "his favorite sun dress." She is being watched as she strips down naked. She sings his praises, her very smell is what he wants from her.

The line between that song being a critique of that kind of relationship, and just being that kind of relationship, is how in control of the message she appears to be. When she doesn't seem in control, it's not a surprise that ppl begin to read it as literal.

I'm not sure Kathleen Edwards is appropriate here. How are they worth comparison -- they're both women?

i really only know the video games song very well. but that song does paint her into that corner imho.

I was shocked to see a recent picture of Meryl Streep and discover that her transformation into Margaret Thatcher wasn't permanent. Talk about pulling a fast one.

women today are so empowered to choose whatever asshole they want to fuck

Is there a male equivalent of "ingenue?"

xxxp well, we're discussing whether all female performers are forced into this particular system of evaluation. so i was thinking about female performers i care a lot about right now + she is at the top of the list. i remembered she was performing on tv tnite and took the opportunity to advertise for her.

ime 'edgy' or 'new' music aesthetically privilages hypermasculinity, "feminine vulnerable" and all manner of genderfuckery from male performers. it's a big tent. but it really can't deal on a nuanced scale with anything more complicated than virgin/whore/virgin-whore from female performers.Is that really true? I'd say that rock allows a fair amount of gender fluidity and experimentation from male performers and less (but still some) from females. "New music" allowed a bit of room for the likes of Ani di Franco, PJ Harvey, Bikini Kill, Tuneyards, etc., at least in indierock circles. Still, I can't deny that males get a LOT more privilege in this regard.

Thing is, hip-hop and country (and pop, too, more often than not) are extremely rigid in terms of the gender roles they assign to both men and women. So it's not like there's a single set of rules. It changes a great deal relative to genre and audience.

Tim -- I'd point you to the post I made directly above yours. Meryl Streep is always in control of her performance.

I will say that Kathleen Edwards' gender is totally ancillary to her music. Her musical lineage is, for lack of a better word, rockist, which is to say, the "authentic" antithesis of the packaged performer. Whether one cares or not is a different matter.

xp: but it's a *performance*. and there are others, and they're not all the same.

xxpost - Even a bad, uncontrolled performance is not a literal one. If anything, the reverse is more likely to be true: a well-executed performance of a role erases the conventional hallmarks of performance such that it is more likely to feel "real". A poor performance of critique will is more likely to resemble unconvincing mockery than actual literalism.

IMO the SNL peformance, however bad it was (and I agree it was bad), does not give rise to any reasonable basis on which to assume "Video Games" is literal.

you know what i think makes an interesting comparison? "he hit me (and it felt like a kiss)" it's a tremendous song imo, but part of what really makes it amazing is that it's unclear what level of sincerity or mimesis it is operating on. i think there's a similar thing here and in the music video she seems to have a lot more distance from it (tho still razor thin i'd say -- unlike a track that was obviously explicitly about how being a passive love object is terrible). her snl performance made it sound much more unclear. maybe. i mean, i didn't walk away from her snl performance and say, "oh wow, ldr actually believes that her persona in that song is a good thing." but i did walk away feeling like i had just seen someone who embodies that song in ways that were... idk, uncomfortable?

u know, maybe i'm entirely wrong. i'm kinda talking myself into liking the performance. the way she sang that song was kinda a perfect way to sing that particular song.

women today are so empowered to choose whatever asshole they want to fuck

― the 500 gats of bartholomew thuggins (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Tuesday, January 17, 2012 4:52 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

boom

thing is, when a female artist is presenting herself, generally speaking, in strongly sexualized terms, it may be slightly disingenuous to equate her repeated embodiment of a self-negating and powerless form of erotic desperation with empowered gendered play.

that is, mordy's description of her appeal OTM (at least where a straight male audience is concerned):

we have an artist whose entire act is either enacting particular sexist tropes about female passivity, male domination, a whole dynamic of neglect + pining, or at the very least problematizing + dialoguing that it. she records one single that that gets her a lot of attention. i'm not going to pretend that my love of that single has nothing to do w/ gender + sex. i found her performance in that video really sexy, i found her vocal performance really arresting, and titillating.

the way she sang that song was kinda a perfect way to sing that particular song.

except no. to make anything interesting out of that kind of literalization, she'd have to be dripping pig blood, carrie-style (or i dunno, something like that). just being bad isn't interesting.

Number 7 in Pazz/Jop

I feel with "Video Games" it's not so much that it can't be taken literally, more that it can't be taken only as literal - the sense I get is that LDR-the-performer wants you to believe this is real while LDR-the-author wants you to know how screwed up it is. The trick is how these two competing roles are perfectly balanced and also impossible to disentangle - in particular, in that the performance creates the text (in fact a lot of the "text" component could actuall be described as "context" or at least "frame", like an artist reframing found objects in an installation).

I think often the "problem" with live performances in this regard is how the variability of the performance is foregrounded over the text, such that it unbalances the relationship in favour of the former.

Interesting, totally different take by Tom E in his P&J essay:

"For me—and there are kinder, just as convincing interpretations—the singer in "Video Games" is a solipsist, casting herself as a master manipulator and her lazy, drifty relationship as a great love. So I hear a record about fakery and self-projection, which is more timely than how "authentic" the woman who made it is."

the sense I get is that LDR-the-performer wants you to believe this is real while LDR-the-author wants you to know how screwed up it is.

I don't know how you can possibly parse this kind of dichotomy in a productive way but fwiw, I'm not convinced that is true.

i understand why you would read it that way. she repeats video games over and over (and it's the title of the song). that seems to code culturally as a guy that is immature, neglectful, etc, so a critical voice interpolating and making the critique explicit through repetition.

but i think there's an equally valid interpretation that she reads this as a moment of intimacy. "and you say get over here / and play a video game" could be read as an invitation to join him (i don't get a sense of explicit rejection by the video game player), and i think that reading makes even more sense syntactical sense than the alternative. "go play a video game," doesn't have an obvious negative interpretation. "this is my idea of fun / playing video games" - actually equates her own agency + enjoyment with playing video games. i don't even see the other way of reading that line -- that her idea of fun (watching friends fall in and out of Old Pauls) is just as alienating and passive as watching her boyfriend play video games? maybe...

Perhaps replace "LDR-the-performer" with "LDR-the-character". I feel that the character "means it" as much as a character in a book or a tv show or film does.

no, i understood what you meant. i'm just pushing against the notion that there's necessarily a critical voice w/ more distance than the character

there's of course our own critical voice as listeners + i do believe texts include multiple levels of meaning (cf. Derrida)