beccatoria | Female Singers

Female Singers - Halp?

Hey guys
First off I'm really, really sorry I've been so crap about posting here lately and stuff. It's been a bit of a grind-you-down kind of couple of weeks. But I still love you all!

In other news, HALP ME.

For reasons that are far to long and boring to be of interest to many of you, I find that I need some suggestions for female singers, or bands with female lead singers, that I might like. My music taste tends to be somewhere in the vicinity of indie rock with various odd jaunts toward both singer-songwriter and rap artist. I like complicated lyrics. I like when not all the songs are about being in love. Or if they are, the lyrics are complicated and interesting. I like drumming. I like "strong" voices rather than "pretty" voices.

Here are some female artists I already like:

Florence and the Machine
Joan Baez
Tracy Chapman
Pat Benatar (shut up!)
Jefferson Airplane
Regina Spektor
Tori Amos (during her early years)

Any recs welcome!

Thanks guys!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Well, I won't kick you out, but fair point and I meant more "everyone I've seen post as part of this discussion."

To be fair, I probably shouldn't have waded in because I actually haven't been following the whole situation closely enough to have more than a superficial opinion on it. Though I do think you're partly making my point better than I did, which is that when these things get picked up by these parts of fandom (metafandom, linkspam), people expressing a different opinion worry about getting kicked out of polite society. Which I know you're sort of kidding, but...not really? (And it's not a coincidence that I'm only talking about this here in a super-sekrit corner in the comments of a post about something else with people I know and not in a place likely to get linked on metafandom or linkspam as "part of the wank." *waves to Becka*). As soon as it's something that's going to get a "Fail" appended to the end of its name, it's like there are rules to follow in how it should be talked about which I'm not sure is a good thing? Which was more my point rather than actual commenting on Amanda Palmer herself.

Although now that I AM thinking about it, I do agree that there's a difference between intentional OTT-ness meant to transcend or make a point (and I am uncomfortable with how the discussion starts to trend away from how stupid, superficial, offensively flawed in execution, whatever-you-think-about-the-project it is and her right to make it or her right to call it art, because those two things are not the same and fandom conflates them in ways I don't love), and unintentional fail. But I'm not sure I can give AP (who I've literally never listened to) that much credit here. I think intentional OTT-ness requires at least some understanding or compassion to be done in a way that's effective? And for something that's meant to be deliberately offensive for artistic purposes, she seems awfully surprised that people were...offended. Which makes me think it was really just a very poor joke and makes me less inclined to give her any benefit of actually having been attempting to subvert any stereotypes?

Oh hey, remember when I was shutting up? *g* IT IS SO MUCH EASIER TO DO THIS OVER HERE THAN IN MY JOURNAL, SORRY. :p

As soon as it's something that's going to get a "Fail" appended to the end of its name, it's like there are rules to follow in how it should be talked about which I'm not sure is a good thing?
Yes, this is why I find it uncomfortable. There's this shutting-down-of-conversation that happens on *both* sides. I don't doubt that there are probably fans saying "you don't get it/get over it/omg censorship/etc." stuff right now somewhere, but people engaging in good faith get dismissed right alongside them if they don't accept all the rules and jargon and rightness of your position as a baseline. There is NO middle ground.

On the specific "did she mean to be OTT or not?" issue... I preface this by saying I'm not taking any 'side' here and Palmer's done things before that I respect and others that I find tasteless. At first glance, it seemed like a misaimed joke, not intended to shock and offend as much as be wacky, and I think it's *very* obvious she didn't expect it to be conflated with mocking real people with disabilities (and apparently every kind of disablity ever), probably because conjoined twins are so rare in reality but popular as a cultural image.

Two of the released songs are campy and cute Americana-type stuff. However, listening to "A Campaign for Shock and Awe", I can sort of see where the album/project as a whole might be going? That's where you can hear the 'darker' elements creeping in and the exploitation angle, and to me points to a more active attempt to be audacious and subversive. I'm personally withholding judgment on how compassionate vs. offensive it is until I get a better idea of WTF is going on.

Edit: Not sure if this makes sense, I'm not saying it might turn around and be totally justified and awesome, but I'll be more interested in taking a close look at it and attacking its substance and how it fails from there, rather than just speculating? I'm not the person going "JUST GIVE DOLLHOUSE A CHANCE", I'm the person going "Dollhouse didn't inherently HAVE to suck, there were elements of good and elements that went horribly wrong."

Edited 2010-02-21 21:49 (UTC)

*talks way more than I intended*

I'm not the person going "JUST GIVE DOLLHOUSE A CHANCE", I'm the person going "Dollhouse didn't inherently HAVE to suck, there were elements of good and elements that went horribly wrong."

I found this a really useful analogy! Because I think it's distilled it into...it's just a personal line/response? Because while I haven't heard the project, mostly I find her response to it all distasteful enough not to want to. Though I do also hope that at the same time I recognize that avoiding it doesn't mean I judge people who respond to it differently and have a different line in a different place than I do?

I appreciate that! :)

I think intentional OTT-ness requires at least some understanding or compassion to be done in a way that's effective? And for something that's meant to be deliberately offensive for artistic purposes, she seems awfully surprised that people were...offended. Which makes me think it was really just a very poor joke and makes me less inclined to give her any benefit of actually having been attempting to subvert any stereotypes

Yeah to all of that. Undoubtedly you've already seen this, but just to get it out there, a couple of quotes from the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center blog:

See [Palmer's] continued misuse of the word “rape” in interviews, and the simulated rape of a Katy Perry lookalike in her stage show. [See the blog post for the YouTube link.] Suffice to say I’m not optimistic about her handling of this, simply based on her track record. ...

Palmer has posted a non-apology in which she at least half-acknowledges that her choice of words regarding disabled feminists was poor. But despite numerous comments on both of her blog posts asking her to address her trivialization and flippant use of child pornography, she has chosen not to address it, instead editing that part out of the original post. (In her followup, she actually calls herself “brave”.)

In her non-apology, she says this is art and art is controversial, and we just don’t understand, and - oh, look, I have bingo! Again, I disagree. This isn’t art, Ms. Palmer, it’s cynical, dismissive marketing. If it was art, you’d have the guts to actually examine the realities of the trauma you’re putting on like that conjoined-twins dress.

That might be worth watching.

In a comment, Shira adds:

Unfortunately for Palmer, intent is irrelevant. When one does something that is widely perceived as harmful, one can consider why people feel it’s harmful and fix it, or one can dismiss everyone that feels hurt and say “That wasn’t my intent, so you’re not allowed to be upset about it.” Palmer has once again chosen the latter.

I've casually enjoyed the Dresden Dolls (which is not to say I haven't found at least a couple of their songs failsome about stuff like intersex and trans issues), but I'm not talking about any boycott (to be sure, a boycott is an action targeted against specific institutions of power, anyway) when I say this whole thing is repugnant enough that it's unfortunately going to shadow my experience with the rest of Palmer's work. I would say Webley's other work, too, but I'd never heard of him before this.

Now I agree with almost all of this, but where I get uncomfortable is here:

This isn’t art, Ms. Palmer, it’s cynical, dismissive marketing.

And I don't want to get caught up in semantics (and I fear I'm getting close!) but I would say that it's BAD art before I would agree it's NOT art. Which isn't to say that I don't agree that it's cynical, dismissive marketing, or even that I personally think it has no redeeming artistic value, or that I don't understand why it's repugnant enough to some listeners to make one no longer a fan of her work. I just think there's a line we do have to maintain between "not art" and therefore something to be regulated, and "bad art" as something I find in poor taste and will avoid.

But I do also agree with everything you say about her response to the criticism, which I find more distasteful even than the actual project? Because her response does indicate to me that she is kind of wearing a fig leaf with her response that it's too artistic for anyone who's offended to understand. (Which again, I don't think invalidates her right to have done it, but if she's going to say it's high art I agree she ought to be ready to actually engage productively).

For me, it's actually very much like what Nicole is saying about Dollhouse. Where I agree that it probably didn't HAVE to be fail, and this project of AP's doesn't HAVE to be fail, but it treads close enough to a line that makes me uncomfortable such that it would have to be done pretty expertly and with a hell of a lot of understanding for me to enjoy it. And in neither instance does that appear to be the case, so I just won't watch and/or won't buy. Even though I'll probably stay away from criticizing either too loudly, since I didn't actually watch or listen to either project...

her response does indicate to me that she is kind of wearing a fig leaf with her response that it's too artistic for anyone who's offended to understand. (Which again, I don't think invalidates her right to have done it, but if she's going to say it's high art I agree she ought to be ready to actually engage productively).

Yeah. re: art, again I resort to quoting someone else (in this case Sady) who's more eloquent on this than I could be:

[O]ne of the fun things about this particular culture we live in, where you can safely say or do or make any piece of art you like, provided that you’re not actually and non-consensually hurting anyone or breaking any laws to make it, is that people have feedback. Sometimes it’s not pleasant feedback. And if you are going to do this, if you’re going to put shit out there, you need to be prepared for feedback that is not pleasant. ...

I get feedback that stings almost every single day – at least once in this thread! – and, if it’s not openly disruptive or shitty, I publish it, and I think about it, and I respond to it. Because my goal is not to hurt people’s feelings in the same old boring ways they get hurt so much of the time anywhere else. Amanda Palmer made some art (no matter what I think of it, or whether I think it deserves that name) and she is facing one of the consequences of art, which is: unfavorable reviews and opinions. Getting upset about unfavorable reviews and opinions, and framing your upset reactions as a defense of “free expression,” is one of the greater and more common ironies in this world. I’m not surprised she’s doing it, because, hey: people get petulant. But it’s a reaction that deserves a closer look.

it would have to be done pretty expertly and with a hell of a lot of understanding for me to enjoy it. And in neither instance does that appear to be the case

Yeah.

In my experience, Dollhouse was a horrible (and simultaneously often boring, bogglingly enough) exercise in viewer masochism.

[On the skit with simulated rape, more thoughts here (http://morethansides.blogspot.com/2010/01/on-rape-culture-amanda-palmer-and.html?showComment=1264335638629#c3830190057984095691). Quote below: (skip (#skip.quote)) As far as Amanda having been raped, I used to make fun of and trivialise self-harm. I did this as a way to cope, because I was currently self-harming. It made it less real for me.
But while I was doing this, I was effectively telling those around me that self-harm was something to be trivialised, somehow not real or weak or whatever. And some of my self-harming friends were horribly hurt by my words.
So while I had experienced it, and my intent was not to cause harm, I caused harm. This is the harm I think of when I see her skit.

And yeah, the beginning was funny as hell. I really wish she hadn't ended it the way she did. Especially since (I've heard but not confirmed) that it was meant to be anti-prop8. Katy Perry spoke publically against prop8.)]
()

See [Palmer's] continued misuse of the word “rape” in interviews
Do you have a link to the interview that's referencing? I hadn't seen it mentioned before. The Katy Perry thing made me lose a lot of respect for her, ugh.

That said, the aspect of this where people are disgusted by the appropriation/trivialization of child abuse is the part I don't personally grok. Not just because Palmer is herself a rape survivor who has a very, very, very long history of referencing things like that in her music, usually in a serious manner and occasionally for dark humor. But also because it calls into question whether you can *ever* incorporate that in fiction? I would say "without upsetting someone" but it will always upset by nature.

I don't have a link on hand but if I find it in my browser history I'll post it. Setting that aside for now because I don't have the links: As my other comments referenced, I am aware that Palmer is a rape survivor (and that she has previously incorporated that and related subjects in her work at length, both seriously and for dark humor). The problem is I don't even have the sense here that this project is supposed to raise awareness of child sexual abuse and child pornography, with a goal of linking the audience to how to help stop it. Not every work of art that includes the subject of child sexual abuse has to be an overt statement about all that, but it makes sense to me that a lot of people are uncool with it when it's just kind of... there as a shocking bit of fictional backstory for a kinda silly crip-drag concept band. Not every artist who makes work that includes the subject of child sexual abuse has to be a survivor of child sexual abuse, but what with the stuff I've heretofore talked about in this comment, the fact that Palmer doesn't own that experience really helps seal the deal of ugh.

Another thing is the part where Palmer and Webley's work incorporates themselves, Palmer and Webley, as discovering/nurturing/saving these two (fictional) people, Evelyn Evelyn, from a life of misery, which in toto is... incredibly problematic as well.

I appreciate your response! <3 Clearly the amount of people insulted points to it being poorly handled on her part.

I prefer the arguments on why *this* particular instance is coming off as crass and insensitive, rather than a blanket statement on how child molestation should and shouldn't be addressed in media, because the latter opens a very large can of worms.

No prob!

I prefer the arguments on why *this* particular instance is coming off as crass and insensitive, rather than a blanket statement on how child molestation should and shouldn't be addressed in media, because the latter opens a very large can of worms.

True. Blanket statements are tricky. I guess the only other general thoughts I have right now about handling child molestation and child pornography in media are really from BARCC's Shira - "It is an enormous, life-changing thing. And if you’re not willing to speak to how that shapes a person, if you’re not willing to acknowledge it as more than a mock-shocking blip on the radar? Don’t use it."

And it's not a coincidence that I'm only talking about this here in a super-sekrit corner in the comments of a post about something else with people I know and not in a place likely to get linked on metafandom or linkspam as "part of the wank." *waves to Becka*

*also waves sheepishly* And yeah. It's also not a coincidence I'm replying here to you instead of, like, anywhere else.

As soon as it's something that's going to get a "Fail" appended to the end of its name, it's like there are rules to follow in how it should be talked about which I'm not sure is a good thing?

Yesss. It becomes all about consciousness-raising, as opposed to analysis. And I'm certainly not opposed to consciousness-raising in general, and there have been times when I've been all for that method of discourse. But ... fanfic warnings, misogyny in slash, and this particular "fail" all strike me as issues with, well, nuance. And nuance gets lost when the discussion is framed in terms of good vs. evil.

Plus, I like analysis, dammit. It's who I am. It's what I do. :P Even when I consider myself part of the offended group, so I live in hope that I'm not completely hypocritical here.

and I am uncomfortable with how the discussion starts to trend away from how stupid, superficial, offensively flawed in execution, whatever-you-think-about-the-project it is and her right to make it or her right to call it art, because those two things are not the same and fandom conflates them in ways I don't love

*nod nod* I'll just point to what

nicole_anell said about the project herself. When I first heard of it I thought 'ew, tacky,' but, admittedly did not envision it as an attack on every disability ever precisely because: differently gendered. conjoined. twins. from the child porn industry. Maybe Borat would be a better comparison than All in the Family, because it did seem that the intent was at least as much to be wacky than to save the world by subverting stereotypes. But now that I've heard more about it, I am more interested in the potentially subversive aspects of the project and, if done well, I think it could potentially be more effective than an entirely unproblematic homily about the Struggles the Disabled Face that would offend no one.

And for something that's meant to be deliberately offensive for artistic purposes, she seems awfully surprised that people were...offended.

To psychoanalyze someone I don't know (while I'm up), I tend to think that where people like Amanda Palmer - particularly artists - run into trouble is that they eagerly anticipate offense coming from one side -the cultural right - but not from the side they consider themselves aligned with?

Edited 2010-02-21 23:34 (UTC)

they eagerly anticipate offense coming from one side -the cultural right - but not from the side they consider themselves aligned with?
YES. I think that generalization is extremely accurate for her. Especially because people like that who are directing their 'shock' artistry at people who are anti-gay, anti-sex, etc. feel like they've earned too much "cred" to be attacked by the left or underprivileged, and can't imagine where that came from. At worst they fall back on all-my-critics-are-fascists.

That's how you get people who are simultaneously like "frak you, I make art to provoke!!" and then desperately defending their pure intentions.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Female Singers - Halp?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject