"Uh Huh Her." Thoughts on the new PJ Harvey?

(I find this topic very interesting!)

But I think there's one ambiguity in the binary list of traits that Timothy Warner breaks down. Pop is artificial, he says, rock is natural. Pop is female, we're saying, rock male. (For instance, I am a pop artist, not a rock artist. My stance is female, althogh I am a male. I'm quite willing to accept that. With the exceptions of 'albums' and 'progressive', I align quite easily with the Pop side of that list.)

And yet, on the artificial / natural binary, women don't swing easily to either side. Women are seen as 'artificial' to the extent that they're more likely to be seen as social creatures rather than rugged survivalists or self-sufficient monads, or to the extent that they're more likely to wear make-up and 'contrive' their appearance, etc. A cultural female, as anyone knows who watches a drag queen or a woman making up to go out, is constructed. This all works fine with the female music star as a pop performer, the shining artificial jewel at the very centre of culture's crown.

But there's, paradoxically, a strong and persistent linking of woman to nature in our ideology, and that gives women access to the Nature imagery of rock music; hence the 'Earth Mother' rock woman archetype -- Janis Joplin, Patti Smith, PJ Harvey. Here woman is presented as primal, primitive, passionate, changeable as weather, uncontriving and untrammelled. The trouble is, the dual role of woman (both artificial and primal, both 'pop' and 'rock') creates an unintentionally comic amalgam: the 'Fake Primal' woman, both ephemeral and eternal, fake and real, glitzy and dowdy. One of the funniest things to watch is when a transvestite does an impersonation of this kind of 'primal' pop-rock female. You'll see a drag queen at Wigstock doing a Kate Bush impression that turns into Joni then Bjork, all of them gesticulating in overly-theatrical attempts to 'get back to nature'.

The thing that doesn't fit for me, though, is this characterisation of PJH as an "Earth Mother". Janis, I can see, perhaps, but Polly and Patti are art rockers, and as you yourself point out, the younger of these two has attempted to deconstruct even that via humour and self-mockery. That said, you are possibly onto something with your comic amalgam (Fake Primal), however -- even though I'd lay odds on there being a male equivalent too (70s Bowie? Beck? haha...Plant? Cobain?)

I was thinking about this today and you're right. Something doesn't have to be exclusively a male trait to be masculine.Beards are masculine but I'm sure some women have them.

Personally, I don't think I would describe butch lesbians as feminine (unless they were not wearing the clothes that go with that image).
I would certainly not describe them as masculine though!
I think a lot of people might.

I do agree that [...]the dual role of woman (both artificial and primal, both 'pop' and 'rock') creates an unintentionally comic amalgam: the 'Fake Primal' woman, both ephemeral and eternal, fake and real, glitzy and dowdy, though I am uncertain of the conclusion. I feel that at times, that "unintentionally comic amalgam" is slightly carnevalesque and hyperbole, and that makes me prone to think it's queer and dissonant in a butlerian sense. The drag queen on Wigstock mentioned above, isn't that a man that is imitating a woman, who in turn is imitating 'The Woman'?

Ah, right. I should point out that some of the things written above are analytic and not descriptive, to avoid misunderstandings. And of course there are shades of grey, no woman or man embodies ideas perfectly. But first of all, I believe that generalisations are necessary for theory and analysis, and even if the ideas are totally and perfectly represented in factual bodies, they are present in discourse.

('semantics' means 'meanings' so they are very important!)

Agreed. But I'm sure you understood the meaning of my post, even though I'm not fully capable of expressing myself in english.

Yes, I think I understand that we all (including the redoubtable Momus, haha) have to talk in dichotomies when being analytical -- it's like a necessary evil, and yet simultaneously one way in which, rightly or wrongly but definitely understandably, the wonders of academia become tainted in many peoples' eyes.

And I'm certainly less "arguing" than I am exploring (while desperately trying to relate this discussion back to Polly Harvey over and over again).

I agree with some (much?) of what you, and Momus, are saying here. But this: "man is always in control of his nature" is incomprehensible to me. Perhaps it's because I'm a male sexual abuse survivor (the predator was a woman, just to complete the ass-backwardness) among other things, but I have not felt in control of my nature for large stretches of my life so far. But then again, this is when the personal and anecdotal eclipse the universal and analytical, a state I often find myself identifying with... hence... probably... my love of PJ Harvey's music, with its visceral yet exquisitely art-posturing stance (best of both worlds, perhaps?). You see, without sounding wilfully naive, I haven't always viewed her music through the lens of gender. Sometimes, sure, since it's an obvious theme. But I've also viewed it through the lens of victim, of predator, of reveller, of combatant, of goofball, of survivor, etc. In some ways -- from my odd and very individual perspective, admittedly -- interpreting Polly Harvey's persona and musical output via gender is as arbitrary as interpreting it via (say) left-handedness, or via her ability to wipe the floor with people at Scrabble. Does this make sense?

Oh, and last things last -- the idea that women are perceived as being ruled by their bodies and men by their minds, can be massively contradicted by the meme of big head/little head -- ie/ that men are ultimately driven more by sexual desire than by rationality -- something I've heard echoed and repeated (to the amusement of all, of course) by men and women throughout my life. I mean, the popular image of testosterone and its effects is of a hormone that is rapacious and dangerous, even, whereas estrogen/progesterone are seen in a calmer, more nurturing light. I guess what I'm saying is, you can always turn these dichotomies on their heads whichever stance or posture you decide to take, and in the end, we're all struggling to assert our egos and hopes and need for simple human connection on an unforgiving landscape... using various combinations of compassion, humour, arrogance, creativity, hostility and warmth, to name just a few, gender be damned. (Not that I want to damn gender, really, exactly, haha.)

So, um... I just ran out of steam.

Polly embraces values which I find cheesy: rock and roll,

Rock and Roll is a value? You heard it here on ILM, folks.

In some ways -- from my odd and very individual perspective, admittedly -- interpreting Polly Harvey's persona and musical output via gender is as arbitrary as interpreting it via (say) left-handedness, or via her ability to wipe the floor with people at Scrabble.

Of course you're right here, the pluralism and flexibility of identities is a key part of modern subjecthood. David Simpson's book 'Situatedness' is a good guide to it: we're at pains, now, to spell out where we're coming from, to show that our discourse is situated. We all speak a language called 'Azza' -- we speak 'as this, as that...' David did it above when he began speaking 'as a male sexual abuse survivor'. I don't mean to belittle the pain that that may have caused him, but it does lead us into a particularly modern problem. If I can choose which identity to assume, depending on the situation, what appeal am I making to authenticity? What model of the self am I proposing? If it's a plural self, is it a real self, a genuine self? Might I be caught, ten minutes later, speaking 'as' something quite different? David mentions that he might find Polly Harvey singing 'azza' lefthanded person or a good Scrabble player just as important as her singing 'azza' woman. But are all identities equally important? When he proposes himself 'azza' sexual abuse survivor, wouldn't he feel rather annoyed that people kept relating to him as a whizz at Scrabble?

Just so we get it straight, I'm not a Harvey fanatic, so my purpose is not to give a knee-jerk defense of anything she does. But I marvel at how people can intellectualize music to the point that it isn't even music anymore but a "value".

'Rock and Roll and Christianity are two transcendent ideologies which have been subtly altered on their arrival in Japan.

The transcendental values of Rock and Roll as a belief system can be summed up in the phrase 'sex and drugs and rock and roll'. Life, in this ideology, is about getting high, fucking groupies, and playing guitar music 'from the heart'. It's about rebellious individualism, intoxication, romantic adolescent nihilism, masculinity, irresponsibility, promiscuity, and so on.

Rock and Rollers sometimes use the Confederate flag as a symbol of their transcendental values. Sometimes they even use swastikas. They wear black leather. They include demonic imagery in their lyrics, suggesting a simple inversion of the transcendental values of the Western Christian tradition. Rock and Rollers may seem to reject the dominant values of the west, but in fact they are their ultimate expression, the same way pirates are the ultimate expression of the principles of international maritime free trade.

Rock is not superflat. Like the Christian religion, it privileges certain places, certain times over others (the church or the concert hall is more 'real' than the house or the tour bus, hymn singing or guitar playing is more 'intense' than talking). A rock musician's life exchanges ten hours of monotony in the back of a tour bus for an hour of glorious transcendence onstage. The Christian's whole life is a burdensome prologue to the joy of his death and eternal life. This downgrading of 'normality' in favour of a few fleeting moments of orgiastic release or heavenly bliss obviously lends itself to drug use and explains why religion is 'the opium of the people'. (It's a metaphysic -- with the emphasis on physic -- which applies equally to rave music if we're to believe Simon Reynolds in 'Altered States'.) The cultists of the early Christian church would recognise the lifestyle of the average Rocker, because it's really a form of life-rejecting asceticism.

The transcendentals in the package we call Rock and Roll are mostly values very much at odds with Japanese tradition. Why sing about the devil when Christianity has never taught you sexual repression in the first place? Why vaunt the merits of drugs in a country where they're hardly available? Why pose as a renegade rebel in a land made pleasant by the warm, diffuse habits of consensus?

What's wrong with transcendental values? Simply the fact that by constantly referencing an absent or invisible reality, they belittle what's present and visible.'

Down By The Water is totally related to 'this gender/sex/situatedness rubbish', I'm afraid. It's the story in which the narrator (male? female? we don't really know) meets a 'little blue-eyed girl' in an archetypically 'natural and primal' place, 'down by the water':

She said "no more"
That blue eyed girl
Became blue eyed whore
Down by the water
I took her hand
Just like my daughter
I'll see her again

Oh help me Jesus
Come through this storm
I had to lose her
To do her harm
I heard her holler
I heard her moan
My lovely daughter
I took her home

Little fish, big fish, swimming in the water.
Come back here, man, gimme my daughter...

Now, it seems to me that this is a 'murder ballad' in the manner of Nick Cave, and it shares with Nick Cave's work a conflation of murder and sex (see 'Where The Wild Roses Grow'). It also 'answers' politically-correct feminism (and its idea of the woman as victim) with an appeal to values like 'the primal' and 'the natural' and 'rock music' and 'Romantic literature'.

(I was accidentally watching the edit of Later Louder they showed a while ago, I was confused and thought I was watching last nights.)

For me it is wonderful warm sub-bass, tricky rhythm claks on a wood block, clear, simple drums and a soft voice whose only words I remember are about 'blue eyed boy' and 'little fish'.

Like all those metal songs with 'go suck Satan's cock' cunningly backwards-tracked in?

Er, yeah.

In other words, you would notice (and probably object) if PJ Harvey's new single were a protest song calling for better conditions for women working on short-term contracts in a call centre.

'When you say P J Harvey's new album is raw, what are you really saying?

Are you saying it sounds as if she wrote all the songs and played all the instruments, except the drums? (This much we know for sure.) Are you saying the music sounds ragged, as if it had been bashed out in an afternoon? Are you saying the album is somehow pure and unfiltered? Are you saying she's singing the truth?

'Ms. Harvey has spent more than a decade brilliantly toying with inane assumptions like these. She understands the wild daydreams that a jagged guitar lick and an overaspirated syllable can inspire. She knows that a bent note in the right place conjures up expectations of bluesy authenticity, even in listeners who should know better. And she has figured out that in rock 'n' roll, plagiarism can be a form of honesty: songs often ring true because they remind us of other songs.

'...Sometimes the rawest lyrics are also the most overcooked... "Uh Huh Her" is full of songs that could be barbaric yawps or ironic poses, depending on how you hear them. Which brings us back to raw, back to that fraudulent (but seductive) idea that a wily rock veteran has simplified her music to show us her soul... She knows exactly what's she's doing and how she's doing it, and the album booklet makes sure we know she knows...'

If my theory is right, the correct response to 'who the fuck do you think you are, trying to straighten my curly hair' is either 'Who the fuck did you think you were getting involved with, he's Vincent Gallo!' or else the Spinal-Tappish 'I don't know why they couldn't get along, they're sooooo similar really'.

How so? Can P J only sing about her personal life? BTW, I didn't know she was ever in a relationship with him, it doesn't interest me that she was, it doesn't influence my listening experience now that I do.

x-post

You mean you need a fan to say that it's the music and voice that matters the most in the end for that listener? Hi there!

pj harvey of course is a type of goth. i'm sure you'd think all goths should start singing about doing the dishes or even get a healthy interest in politics and parents of goth children would concur. what makes her relevant and most goths not is that a) she started out writing good catchy songs like "dress" and "sheilanagig" which have interesting lyrics, strong female perspective, good singing, nice rock arrangements that aren't too cliched - and she continues to do so; b) she varies her approach with each album in a classic rock way, trying to give each one a different feel and cohesion and yet staying true to an overall essence of her own style.

anyway in the arts a practitioner of the gothic style can do something in a very old-fashioned way or be very up to date - ann rice is pretty un-modern, but lars von trier's "the kingdom" was pretty "postmodern" if you will, and faulkner still seems cutting edge to us. so too someone doing social realism could be quite modern, could not be... i guess lots of hip hop is a pretty modern form of what you're talking about, momus.

but to attack pj harvey on grounds that she is conservative... just shows how snobbish one is. it's like an anarchist saying the socialists just don't go far enough; it's like a fan of merzbow thinking that my bloody valentine is too poppy. most girls in america and britain still could benefit from women artists giving them exhortations to empower them, and that's that.

I find, though, that her lyrics can be read differently. Fruits and liquids are connoted to female sexuality and reproduction, remember for example Lady Macbeth saying "unsex me here, and fill me from the crown to the toe top-full of direst cruelty! Make thick my blood […] Come to my woman's breasts, and take my milk for gall, you murdering ministers". And it seems to me that's how Harvey's using 'water' as opposed to 'dry'. Take the following examples from Dry, remembering its heavy use of biblical imagery: Mary Mary drank it soft (Water) – Send those angels down to woo me now (O Stella, Stella Maris also being "the star of the sea" and synonymous to the mother of God) – Pick the fruit / Realize / I'm naked […] So fruit flower myself inside out / I'm happy and bleeding for you (Happy and Bleeding for You. Compare to Genesis 3:6-7 and 3:16) – I'm swinging over like a heavy loaded fruit tree (Dress) – The sun doesn't shine down here (Plants and Rags) - This fruit was bruised / Dropped off and blue / Out of season (Happy and Bleeding). I would suggest that "Dry" thematically is about reproduction and having a hard time to concieve (and just to point out, this was a really quick analysis and I don't know wheather or not there's a biographical truth behind it) - things that are very real and very important to modern women. Granted, this is a pretty archaic imagery, and certainly one that could put Harvey in the 'pseudo primal' context. On the other hand, there aren't many 'modern', interchangeable metaphores around. Even though I am more than willing to criticize the discourse of rock men & women and the context of within PJ Harvey is placed, or even the metaphores being used – and their connotations – but I really can't criticize the use of them.

most girls in america and britain still could benefit from women artists giving them exhortations to empower them

I find that incredibly wrongheaded. Does PJH 'empower' women by her dark brooding, or does she just lead them into a cul-de-sac where they can stew, neglected, with all the demons in Pandora's Box? Since we're social animals, what cures and 'empowers' us is to be lead in the direction of the social. Is PJH a living example of a woman with successful social relationships? A role model who's going to lead us to happiness?

I quoted these words by Richard Sennett on another thread, but I think they're relevant here: "Masses of people are concerned with their single life histories and particular emotion as never before; this concern has proved to be a trap rather than a liberation," he wrote. Given that each self is "in some measure a cabinet of horrors, civilised relations between selves can only proceed to the extent that nasty little secrets of desire, greed or envy are kept locked up".