Female Singers - Halp?
Feb. 20th, 2010 02:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
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!
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!
no subject
Date: 2010-02-21 06:19 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-21 06:55 pm (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2010-02-21 09:35 pm (UTC)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."
no subject
Date: 2010-02-21 10:50 pm (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2010-02-21 11:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-21 09:40 pm (UTC)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: In a comment, Shira adds: 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.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-21 10:38 pm (UTC)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...
no subject
Date: 2010-02-21 11:03 pm (UTC)Yeah. re: art, again I resort to quoting someone else (in this case Sady) who's more eloquent on this than I could be: 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.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-21 10:46 pm (UTC)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.)]
()
no subject
Date: 2010-02-21 11:55 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-22 12:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-22 01:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-22 02:15 am (UTC)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 subject
Date: 2010-02-22 03:20 am (UTC)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."
no subject
Date: 2010-02-21 11:23 pm (UTC)*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
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?
no subject
Date: 2010-02-22 12:30 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-21 08:07 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-21 08:26 pm (UTC)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*
no subject
Date: 2010-02-21 10:14 pm (UTC)I don't think ever specifically had disability fail (actually I'm SURE they must have at some point, I just can't remember), it's just the quintessential example of a show that had *no idea* when it was offending somebody, as opposed to a show like "All in the Family" where much more extreme sexist/racist/terrible things were being said but that was intentional and making a point.
Edit: Oh my god, in the interest of inserting some levity into this thread, I just searched for "7th Heaven" on YouTube. This is the first clip I found. Now you'll mostly notice:
1. how hilariously bad the acting is
2. how hilariously bad the writing and directing is
But in the meantime, note the fact that around 1:30, an actual argument takes place when Lucy's husband realizes someone will SEE HIS WIFE'S VAGINA while she's giving birth and he insists on delievering it himself, and the counter-argument from her brother is that he can do it rather than "two strangers" (WHO ARE DOCTORS).
no subject
Date: 2010-02-21 11:32 pm (UTC)*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.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-22 12:36 am (UTC)