Female Singers - Halp?

[beccatoria]

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!

Comments

[nicole-anell.livejournal.com]

At the risk of stepping into the ableism wankstorm that's going on right now, I love Amanda Palmer's stuff, alone and as the Dresden Dolls.

Kate Bush (very Tori-esque, or more accurately Tori was very Kate Bush-esque)
Poe
Sia
Lily Allen
PJ Harvey
Amanda Ghost
Blonde Redhead

Edit: Oh, I can't believe I forgot Tegan & Sara until I noticed someone else mention them.

[frolicndetour.livejournal.com]

Why do you HATE differently-gendered conjoined twins with a history of sexual abuse, Nicole. WHY DO YOU HATE THE CHILDREN??

[nicole-anell.livejournal.com]

...honey, you made my whole day. XD

[beccatoria.livejournal.com]

OKAY. CLEARLY I HAVE TOTALLY MISSED A WHOLE SOMETHING ON THE INTERWEBS. o_O This I must investigate...

[nicole-anell.livejournal.com]

(Excellent use of icon?)

She and her male collaborator have an upcoming concept album called "Evelyn Evelyn", where they pretend to be conjoined twins. Feminists With Disabilities called it offensive, she tweeted a very dismissive response, and the whole thing spiralled from there.

Idk, I think the main aspects of it are kinda tacky and I get the criticism, but at some point you have to be like "Okay, does a goofy side project that's basically an excuse for her and her friend to stick their outfits together and play the accordian demand THIS MUCH outrage on Linkspam?"

Anyway, I always fangirled her music more than her-as-a-person. On the scale of "people I admired who disappoint!" she falls somewhere around Joss Whedon and way lower than, like, TWoP Jacob. ;p

[chaila.livejournal.com]

Duuuuuuuuuuuuude IDEK. I think it might be the survivors of sexual abuse thing that pushes it a little over the edge into pure WHAT THE FUCK????????????????? Funny joke haha. Though yeah, what Nicole said, the LJ (excuse me, Dreamwidth) hivemind does seem to have latched onto it as the next oppressive horse to beat to death.

[ticketsonmyself.livejournal.com]

Hell, between all the seriously shitty (http://www.barcc.org/blog/778/) things embodied in the project and Palmer and Webley's responses to comments, I say keep bringing the shit-kicking on. (Even if I hate that it's giving the record and its creators that much more free publicity.) Even if some of the reaction posts are bound to repeat what others have said. linkspam's only up to its fourth digest so far on this, anyway - that ain't nothin' compared to its coverage of other imbroglios, heh.

[chaila.livejournal.com]

I think it's the treatment of this as an "imbroglio" that has me...something [ETA: Not because I think it is less serious or less offensive than other such events treated like that, but because the form of the discussion just doesn't look the same to me, as in the other instances where the people involved in the discussion are actually disagreeing or coming from different angles. /ETA], because as far as I can tell, there's nobody who's part of the discussion who's disagreeing that this is horrible (nor am I!) I'm all for ripping the project apart as it deserves and obviously people should talk about whatever they want, regardless of who's already said it, but when fandom adopts it as wank, posts about any other aspect other than how horrible it is (which 40 people have said already!) get labeled as "derailing." So the adoption of it as an "imbroglio" and the accompanying attempts to police the discussion about it and limit discussion to just how horrible it is (which, in this case, pretty much everyone agrees with) makes me rudely snarky. I don't actually think that 40 more people shouldn't write posts about how horrible it is, if they want to for any reason!

[frolicndetour.livejournal.com]

which, in this case, pretty much everyone agrees with

At the risk of being kicked out of polite society, I'm not in "everyone" in this instance. I'm not even a huge Amanda Palmer fan (at all), and I definitely see the basis for some of the criticism, but... IDK. For me, things that are so obviously designed to be horrible and play on every offensive stereotype out there in the most OTT way possible - and ultimately transcend them, which I think is what AFP's at least going for here - have a certain... appeal, whereas things like Glee (or hell, BSG,) where the offensiveness is unintentional and embedded are far more disturbing. All in the Family vs. Seventh Heaven?

And I may be completely wrong, but the way the discussion's being conducted (i.e. "how can Nieeeeeeel like this woman, ) is a major turn-off.

[chaila.livejournal.com]

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?

[nicole-anell.livejournal.com]

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."

[chaila.livejournal.com]

*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?

[ticketsonmyself.livejournal.com]

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.

[chaila.livejournal.com]

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...

[ticketsonmyself.livejournal.com]

[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.)]
()

[frolicndetour.livejournal.com]

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?

[nicole-anell.livejournal.com]

The amount of scrutiny and hate this obscure musician has gotten since she hooked up with Neil Gaiman does color this a little poorly for me, yeah. And count me as part of the non-hive who sees it as worth discussing (really discussing, not just repeating the same thing over and over and telling people who discuss it from any other angle that they're derailing/tangential/showing their privilege) but not worth treating like it's the WORST. FAIL. EVER. IN HISTORY. rather than somebody consciously drawing from the most over-the-top tropes possible.

Ugggggh, I'm sorry I invited this all over your journal, Becca. :( [/shuts up now]

All in the Family vs. Seventh Heaven?
Battlestar Galactica: The '7th Heaven' of well-intentioned cripple fail.

[beccatoria.livejournal.com]

Dude, it's cool. :) No one's eaten anyone else alive and I'm mostly not commenting cus I have no opinion but it's certainly all enlightening reading. Please don't take my silence as sullen. :)

Also I now feel the need to know what the hell 7th Heaven was... See? You're just determined to educate me in the ways of disability fail in the media aren't you? AREN'T YOU?! ;)

*uses poor sunned-Sam icon*

[frolicndetour.livejournal.com]

The amount of scrutiny and hate this obscure musician has gotten since she hooked up with Neil Gaiman does color this a little poorly for me, yeah.

*clings* YES. It can't help but color it when it's the exact substance of at least a third of the comments I've read on the issue. And when I distinctly remember UnfunnyBusiness reacting with nearly the same level of moral outrage to her shameless desecration of the musical integrity of the Boston Pops.*g* (As a lifelong Bostonian: AHAHAHAHA!)

And count me as part of the non-hive who sees it as worth discussing (really discussing, not just repeating the same thing over and over and telling people who discuss it from any other angle that they're derailing/tangential/showing their privilege) but not worth treating like it's the WORST. FAIL. EVER. IN HISTORY. rather than somebody consciously drawing from the most over-the-top tropes possible.

Pretty much this. Sigh.

[ticketsonmyself.livejournal.com]

when fandom adopts it as wank, posts about any other aspect other than how horrible it is (which 40 people have said already!) get labeled as "derailing."

The reason I used the word "imbroglio" is that I'm uncomfortable with "wank" in this context, since the latter term almost always comes off to me as having really dismissive connotations regardless of intent. As I understand it, the fear of "policing" discussion has always been with us (she said portentously) as long as there's been controversy on social issues as expressed on LJ/DW. In the earlier argument over the linkspam community marking posts that were spinning off racism debates to talk about other things as "derailment" even if the people posting the tangential posts were not commenting to the posts about racism, as far as I've looked into it I understand but am not in favor of the mods' behavior in that case. I guess what I'm really uncomfortable with is the associated idea that the "POC cabal," or in this case the hypothetical cabal rocking with the feminism / anti-ableism / anti- rape culture, including trivialization of child sexual abuse, is out there being Big Brother and suppressing discussion all over the interwebs, or even all over LJ/DW; (for starters) I don't think that's true.

[chaila.livejournal.com]

the associated idea that the "POC cabal," or in this case the hypothetical cabal rocking with the feminism / anti-ableism / anti- rape culture, including trivialization of child sexual abuse, is out there being Big Brother and suppressing discussion all over the interwebs, or even all over LJ/DW; (for starters) I don't think that's true.

I absolutely didn't mean to conflate the two with my language. Moreso just to lament that it's really hard for me to engage there because I don't think I know the conventions and vocabulary well enough to not do it wrong, which makes me afraid of saying anything at all where anybody but people who happen to be reading this post will see? Even though I think we more or less agree. I don't think there's any intentional suppressing of discussion, but I think it does happen just...out of fear of making people angry?

[ticketsonmyself.livejournal.com]

I don't think there's anything wrong with reading more before posting (if you decide you want to post about it) if you're concerned that there's terminology and so on you're not familiar with. I mean, there's obviously no expiration date on the relevance of these issues, even if a specific promotional campaign or record will only be at the forefront of someone's mind for a certain amount of time. Personally speaking, it's not generally so much the initial thoughts/product that set my opinion of the person who comes out with them, so much as it is their response(s) to the reactions of others. For example, in Palmer's case, I wouldn't be coming off with such an unfavorable impression of her with respect to the issues that various feminist / anti-ableist / anti- rape culture minded people have brought up, if she hadn't been so dismissive and self-congratulatory in the content (not only the tone) of her responses, in a way that reinforces some pretty awful things.

[frolicndetour.livejournal.com]

I apologize in advance if I'm reading too much into your comment, but I don't think anyone here has invoked any "POC cabal," nor is likely to since this is not a race issue as far as I can tell. And I would like to consider myself:

rocking with the feminism / anti-ableism / anti- rape culture

and I still have issues with some of the criticism of Amanda Palmer I'm seeing. I don't think I'm being persecuted or oppressed or ~silenced~ by people choosing to frame the discussion in those terms; I just think it's inaccurate.

[chaila.livejournal.com]

Eh, as to the first part, that's my fault. I halfway invoked some larger context that does have to do with discussions of racism without being very clear. There was an earlier, um, discussion about definitions of "derailing" and the specific way it was being used very broadly in some circumstances. And (generalizing here!) some people responded to it with assertions that a small group of people, often involved in discussions about racism, were actively attempting to control who said what on LJ/DW. And while I had thoughts about that, I didn't really explain them and was kind of implicitly bringing them up by invoking "derailing" specifically with heavy amounts of snark. (And while I obvs had stuff to say about that, I didn't say it and shouldn't bring it here! *SNUGGLES BECKA <# <# <#*)

[ticketsonmyself.livejournal.com]

I don't think I'm being persecuted or oppressed or ~silenced~ by people choosing to frame the discussion in those terms; I just think it's inaccurate.

Well, true, I know people who value those things are not a monolith! Or, you know, a cabal. :) chaila43 covers what I was responding to (and her original response to the comment you're referring to was in that context - my comment probably looked like a non sequitur out of that context).