[Weirdelves]

Dayumm

[Jessie]

There's a rumor going around on Tumblr that Joanna and Andy broke up. Odd since they were just pictured together. No sources yet though. I don't believe it.

[dwaink]

My wife says she recognized a snipet of a Joanna song(sans singing) being played on some NPR cooking show today, as segue music.

dwain

[polliwog]

What's next, elevators?

[Wanbli]

[Jessie]

They look fine to me. I think he's a sweetheart.

[sadie]

Hello! I'm new and joined because 'sadie' was available as a username (lucky me!). I found an interesting argument going on in the comments of:



...to do with Joanna's music being 'pop' or not. Just thought you may be interested to read it or perhaps chime in.

[Andrew]

Um, well it's certainly music derived from popular tradition. It's not at all what I would call 'classical'... I find that slightly ridiculous. You can draw parallels and influences, particularly with Ys as a whole, but it isn't 'classical music'. That's like calling Adele 'jazz'.

I can't wait to see Joanna on Portlandia! It'll be really interesting to see her act. Interested in the GIPC video partly for the same reason~

[Jessie]

I just call her Folk because of the storytelling in her songs.

[sadie]

I think that the generally accepted definition of popular music is far too broad, ahem: People usually define pop as what you hear on the radio and there appears to be lots of confusion over various definitions, (pop/popular is confusing enough, the former used to just be a shortened form but now the two are entirely different genres, popular music consuming pop and everything else listed on the link above) I would be interested to read a general consensus of music history experts on this.

[Andrew]

I don't think it's too broad necessarily, but it is true that calling something pop basically has no meaning. The origins of the pop/classical divide are inherently classist in nature, i.e., pop is for the blacks and the working class, classical is for the cultured and the scholarly. That's barely relevant at all nowadays, particularly for Joanna Newsom, whose music is about as intellectually deep as you can get. Then there are all these sub-genres nowadays, and pop music has become so diversely focused that 'pop' as a genre has lost all meaning - if someone describes something as 'pop music' , sure, you probably know something about how it'll be structured, you probably know there'll be lyrics, you probably know some basic things about instrumentation, but without the sub-genre you basically have no idea about actual specifics. It's like calling something classical. Yeah, I'll know it'll involve orchestral arrangements, and probably follow a fair few broad tradtitions, but I still don't have any idea what it sounds like. Still, Joanna falls firmly within the 'pop' side of the divide.

Nomenclature and genre differences aside, Joanna is Joanna. She's unique.

[sadie]

I totally agree with you. Pop should never be used as a descriptive word when recommending music to someone. While it would be absurd to put Joanna Newsom into the classical genre, there's just something inside of me that doesn't sit right with the majority of music being produced today being put into the popular music spectrum. I think we need a new word, otherwise conversations like the one on that video and the example I'll add below will go on forever and make people more and more confused.

Example:

1. "Hey, Katie"
2. "Hey, Daniella"
1. "Omigod I just love this song."
2. "Omigod what jenn - ra (read phonetically) is it?"
1, thinking of popular music. "Pop."
2, thinking of pop-pop. "Okay, play it."
1 plays a Hokum song.
2. "That's not pop, why would you call that pop?"

Highly intelligent argument ensues....

[sadie]

Does anyone know where to see Joanna in Portlandia? Is it online yet?

Ok, I found the premiere with Andy Samberg but not Joanna Newsom. It's a non-download one so it's non-naughty. PM me if you want a link.

[sadie]

[harpear]

[Jordan~]

[Andrew]

There will always be a slow crawl forward into new musical territories though, thanks to individuals and indie labels of course, once a new scene or genre arises, it's often slowly monopolised by the record industry

It's certainly true that almost throughout history (and particularly over the last 50 years) the most popular music has been some of the most simple and most conventional As long s there's depth to be found outside of the mainstream, though, I'm happy.

[Jordan~]

[Andrew]

Yeah I was gonna say music is is probably a bit slower, but I still very much agree. Ha, the relationship between the hipster and the retailer (aka bane of the hipster) that you portray is kind of hilarious. I actually have at least three faux-faded plaid shirts that I've recieved as gifts somewhere in my wardrobe Perhaps naturism is the next step?

Of course, no matter what is cool, certain levels of accessibility are basically required in order to have it replicated by industries - that's why you'd never see, for example, full replicas of Marilyn Manson's most extreme outfits in Hot Topic. Similarly, sellable pop needs to be kept fairly simple, and as long as Joanna maintains her 'audience-be-damned' attitude she will of course never be completely swallowed. She can only ever really be replicated in a very shallow, aesthetic way - i.e. elf girl with squawky voice sings songs about dragons on the harp, punctuated by na-na-na's. I actually look forward to her coming, if she ever does, as it will be a joy to throw eggs at her.

[Jordan~]

I think the 'next step', or the escape from the appropriation of popular culture for commercial purposes, is artists like Joanna (and similar artists in other media) who don't give their audience what they want. Artists who produce art, release it, and don't particularly care about what happens to it or who listens to it after it's released can't be made into a product. Oppression today takes the form of the generation and fulfillment of desire: we're told what to want and placated by being given it. Artists who don't give us what we want, but produce what they want, are the only ones who don't fuel that system.

This is one of the reasons for which I support piracy. As I see it, the people who stand to lose the most from the legalisation of piracy - read, the abolition of copyright - are those who commercialise culture. If there were no legal consequences for doing so, how many people who currently buy blockbuster movies, DVD releases from mainstream comics, top 40 albums, etc. would instead download them free of charge? The independent artists inspire devotion in their followings. Legalised piracy would create a sort of democratised system of patronage, where only artists who could convince people to reward them would be rewarded.