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

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".

:) fair enough, though i didn't say you said he was... bear with...

you were saying he is of the modern world (ie pragmatic, concrete world of things) as opposed to being of some fantasy world, and i agreed with your disctinction implicitly inasmuch as i called harvey a goth. but it gets my dander up [as i am a science fiction writer] when people have this attitude that art which uses nonreal things as its subjects.

so i was trying to say, hey that's interesting that you think formby's modern, cos to me his meanings are grounded in a long-since marginalized and almost buried artistic viewpoint of realism, a sort of arch-naive pre-modernism. if we're talking about social value of an artist, to me, that's a pretty fecking conservative place to be.

so i think we still are talking about the same issues in a way. you are saying, and i do not quote, "she isn't relevant to me and my modern world, and i can barely imagine how she's relevant to anybody, she may even be deleterious," and you do say 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? to which i can neatly reply, i dunno, i'm not a psychologist who's seen the terrible effects listening to the music of angry women with guitars who act like men. i am not being snide but i am being sarcastic when i say you seem to know a lot about what women need.

Is PJH a living example of a woman with successful social relationships? A role model who's going to lead us to happiness?

now we're going beyond attacking her lyrical subject matter, and her retrogressive use of guitars, to going ad homenim? come on. i am not bound by some outdated view of human relations that says all our sexual relationships should be stable, cooperative, long-lasting, etc. apparently this rock star girl has screwed several famous men, and writes songs about it or whatever. yes, i think that is a good role model, i really do!

we're getting at some real fundamentals of life here - having painful relationships may in fact be not detrimental to human existence; many artists deliberately seek out damaging relationships; smart human beings use sex to further their careers; guitars may be modern.

finally, i am going to step back and more obviously state how funny it is that in a discussion about pj harvey, momus holds up george formby as a counterexample. your music certainly does have much more in common with his...

you may find it slightly interesting that as an american i was introduced to formby by richard thompson. try to find a review of his work that doesn't use the word dark... in a way thompson might be exactly halfway between pj harvey and george formby.

It gets my dander up [] when people have this attitude about art which uses nonreal things as its subjects.

...

I'm not a psychologist who's seen the terrible effects of listening to the music of angry women

yet you're one of those here who is constantly trying to ratchet up the tone and discuss recontextualization of the memes in the sociopolitical hypertrophy. eh?

of course if "my little goat and me" and "is this desire" are really about the same thing...

I've made the decision not to follow PJ Harvey's career closely. She's not my kind of artist.

yet he still fancies himself enough of an expert to lecture us on why she is not only a "bad artist" but a bad role model for women.

the arrogance is unbelievable, yet not surprising.

how can you say it's silly to see singers as social role models? they are by and large stage performers, yes? their fans sing along, yes? if not they who, then, would be a role model? are only people one's met allowed? or people from good safe careers, honorable trades?

I guess the part that ultimately confuses me is the following: as someone who loves the music of PJH, in general, I've never ever thought of her as someone particularly cutting edge or radical (sociopolitically, or whatever), so I don't really understand the "conservative" attacks against her here (uh huh here?). She has played around with the blues, and with old andro-centric rock'n'roll tropes, but I've never gotten the impression of someone who is precious about that, or has elevated herself to some kind of rarefied avant-garde plane. In fact, most interviews I've read having largely betrayed her very English ordinariness. the whole "conservative" thing seems to be a straw (wo)man.

Oh, and quickly, "Down by the Water" has always strongly reminded me of a traditional song most often associated with the Irish band Planxty, namely "The Well Below the Valley" (seriously, check those lyrics out). The fact that its a traditional folk song would certainly suggest "conservative"; but then again, its subject matter, flying in the face of what is usually acceptable within that genre, might suggest otherwise (reactionary, sure, but that doesn't negate its power). Or not. Really, this is more of an observation that parallels Momus's own reinterpretation than it is anything else, and now my head hurts, so...

(Last quick observation/question: why do people get so defensive about their tastes? And even more so when someone happens to attach some attitude or political label to them. I mean, I like Bob Dylan but I'm not a misogynist. I like P J Harvey, but I'm not a misandrist... or a misogynist, for that matter.)

-- Momus (nic...), June 12th, 2004.

I don't mean (and didn't say) that lyrics aren't very important to me. I said the lyrics aren't very important to me, the lyrics of this particular song.

I'm curious about being called 'rockist', because I don't know what it means, really, and I've yet to find an adequate explanation here.

Your way of looking at the world isn't universal Momus, not everyone thinks like you, or even thinks how you think they think.

Others to whom lyrics have been unimportant at various times:
Yoko Ono, Mendelsohn, Mogwai, Derrick May, Aphex Twin, Fugazi, Pink Floyd, Ugefutsu, Bjork, Lightning Bolt, Dexter Gordon.

Other songs whose lyrics are important to me:
Shellac - A Prayer To God
Team Dresch - Don't Try Suicide
Fugazi - Bed For The Scraping
PJ Harvey - You Said Something
Bjork - All Is Full of Love
Nicollette - Wholesome
The Chordettes - Mr Sandman.

-- Momus (nic...), June 12th, 2004.

Whether I noticed the lyrics or not would depend mostly on how they are sung and the music that goes with them, not the words themselves (although they do play a part). A song like that would probably be clearly presented, with the lyrics to the fore, so I probably would notice them.

A song calling for better conditions for women working on short-term contracts in a call centre would be out-of-character for PJ Harvey (rather, for the PJ Harvey she projects). For that reason it doesn't sound, on paper, like a particularly good idea. I think it (usually) detracts from a TV comedy when one of the characters looks at the screen and says something knowingly to the audience - a similar break with character that I don't like.

I wouldn't exactly say I'd object to it though, why should I?

Of the songs I've heard and know I like, TGIF by Le Tigre probably comes closest to that subject matter, but Le Tigre are not PJ Harvey. (TGIF is not one of the better songs on that album, but it is still very good).
Distinguishing, sometimes unfairly, between men and women is something Le Tigre often make a point of doing.

Distraught, Unsettling, Gutsy, Crunchy, Brittle, Intimate, Aggressive, Provocative, Passionate, Fiery, Intense, Sexy, Bleak, Brooding, Angst-Ridden, Cathartic, Eerie, Sexual, Theatrical, Tense/Anxious, Ominous, Confrontational

Nick Cave's 'tones', according to AMG, are almost identical:

Distraught, Bleak, Brooding, Angst-Ridden, Literate, Nihilistic, Ominous, Eerie, Theatrical, Gloomy

And here are the 'tones' for George Formby:

Witty, Playful, Plaintive, Joyous, Irreverent, Fun, Amiable/Good-Natured, Carefree, Happy, Cheerful

Eccentric, Irreverent, Cynical/Sarcastic, Elegant, Sophisticated, Cerebral, Stylish, Sexual, Silly, Theatrical, Witty, Provocative, Refined/Mannered, Playful, Humorous, Sleazy, Literate, Ironic, Wry, Acerbic, Brash, Quirky, Rousing

Wierdly enough, Aristophanes is more modern than John Irving.
Wierdly enough, Bob Seger is more modern than Enrico Caruso.
Wierdly enough, Girls Aloud is more modern than the cave paintings of Altamira.
Wierdly enough, the the Telegraph pole is more modern than the dvd player.
WIERDLY ENOUGH, THE TERM "MODERN" IS COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS IN ANY
INTELLIGENT CRITICAL CONTEXT. YOU SHOW YOU ARE A FULE FOR USING IT.

Nick (Distraught): Hi Polly.
Polly (Distraught): Hello Nick.
Nick (Bleak): What's new?
Polly (Unsettling): Not much.
Nick (Brooding>: Oh.
George (Witty): That's a turn-up for the books, then, isn't it, sir?
Nick (Angst-ridden): Ha ha... ha.
Polly (Gutsy): Shut the fuck up, George.
George (Playful): Make me, M'Lady!
Polly (Crunchy): Okay, I will (crunches him on the head).
Nick (Literate): Hoist on your own petard, there, George!
George (Plaintive): Ouch!
Polly (Brittle): Serves you right. Now go out and get us a bag of heroin.
Nick (Nihilistic): Yes, heroin.
George (Joyous): Very well, sir!
Nick (Ominous): Shall we make love while he's out?
Polly (Intimate): Yes.
Nick (Eerie): Come 'ere.
Polly (Aggressive): Make me!
Nick (Theatrical): Bitch!
Polly (Provocative): Catch me first!
Nick (Gloomy): I can't be arsed.
Polly ( Passionate, Fiery, Intense, Sexy, Bleak, Brooding, Angst-Ridden, Cathartic, Eerie, Sexual, Theatrical, Tense/Anxious, Ominous): Oh, all right then.
George (Irreverent): I've brought the stuff, you blimmin' gothic junkies!
Polly (Confrontational): Give that to me!
George (Fun, Amiable/Good-Natured, Carefree, Happy, Cheerful): Catch me first!
Exeunt, chasing George

btw, the new album is probably her most Cave-y, though for none of the reasons implied by that charming little script there.

Who's copying who?

PJ Harvey is crunchy? Mmm...PJ Harvey cereal...

Heard a song off the new album on the radio today. I had the volume turned down pretty low but something about it kept making me think "wow this is really cool I wonder who this is?" I was delighted to find it was her.

as far as the whole gender-bending thing, there really isn't much of that here (I guess some people could make a case for "Pocket Knife"). Just seems like the flipside of Stories From The Sea where she's reacting with horror to a strong outside influence rather than gratitude.

The interesting thing is that this 'Japanese' de-transcendentalising tendency is also happening in western post-modernism. As time goes on, the west becomes more and more 'Japanese' in its concern with the surfaces and details of subcultural style rather than its transcendental claims. Rock as 'a way of living' or 'a way of being truthful' or 'a religion' is replaced by chains of circular references like the ones the NYT review of PJH's new record referred to: 'this sounds like a blues riff, so it references something that references authenticity'. More and more, rock's authenticity is faked in the west just as it is in Japan. Its depths are trompe l'oeuil, nothing more than endlessly relayed references back to an authenticity which is, finally, absent. But this doesn't stop rock from being 'transcendental', because the transcendental is all about references to something absent. 'In the end, soul itself is the longing of the soul-less for redemption'.

xpost

In art it's very hard to avoid transcendence. Warhol tried, Murakami is trying, the Brothers Chapman are trying. What happens is that your denial of transcendence becomes a new form of transcendence.

1. artists should NOT be regarded as role models (quote: "I think it's fairly silly to see artists as social role models of any kind"). How true. So many artists, historical and contemporary, are mental cases, borderline-sociopaths, egomaniacs or substance abusers. The act of creation, and the thought and often bravery involved, is the real role model I guess

2. That music IS the trancendance (quote: "But this doesn't stop rock from being 'transcendental', because the transcendental is all about references to something absent"). Briliant point. In fact, music and drugs are probably so closely linked because music IS a drug. Rock is an amphetamine, jazz is like booze, etc etc. I dare say music is probably the most mood altering substance in existence. And people take drugs to to reach what seems to be "absent" in their lives (calm, happiness, energy) and some just use music for the same end result. Which is I guess to say that even inauthentic music can still work it's magic (just like organic vs. chemical drugs which all lead to the state of being stoned).

Of course, this doesn't really have all that much to do with PJH but that argument seems pretty exhausted. BTW I haven't heard much of PJs new disc but the bits I did catch sounded like she's getting more therapeutic release from the music than her fans ever will. It' s one thing to be raw, and another thing to be just undercooked. But I do love the wee lass, and I'm sure I'll warm up to her new disc in time. Hmmmm... maybe that's what the "warming up to" actually implies - making the "raw' effort more digestible.

B.

oh brother

Yes, I had forgotten this one, but it did bother me when I first read it: Tell that to any teenager. Artists being seen as role models is about as inevitable as it gets. You can think it fairly silly that when you drop an object, it falls to the ground, but gravity works anyway.

When someone like PJH comes along to give Rawk a new lease of life (and she is credited with being a sort of godmother to the new, credible garage Rawk, in which young, pretty, liberal kids are getting 'back to Rawk basics'), I see it as 'Police Woman Feminism'. She turns 'fakeness' into 'empowerment'. She takes the idea that you can't play this 'authentic' music unless you're black, male, American, white, male, American, reactionary, male, English-speaking or whatever, and proclaims 'Yes, you can! Look, I can!' Rather than condeming Rawk values as reactionary (as someone like Bjork would), she extends Rawk vocabulary to subjects like menstruation and abortion. Her femaleness and Britishness, rather than disqualifying her from access to Rawk's Black Magic, become her way of granting Rawk an afterlife, a prolongation of its license. Instead of letting it die of natural causes, die the death of a ludicrous elderly Dionysus like Austin Powers, she gives it a means to survive longer, providing a liberal balance to Rawk's essential (by now) conservatism (its primal screams, its emotional atavism, its wilting mojo).

By embracing Rawk, PJH prolongs its legitimacy, removes the charge of inherent misogyny under which the genre might finally have collapsed. It's just like Angie Dickinson pumping fresh, female blood into the police TV thriller genre. The moribund genres have taken all the 'authentic' blood they can, and, late in their vampiric careers, are willing to embrace their former antitheses: women, children, foreigners, old men, whoever. Rather than giving up their power, they 'empower' outsiders, allowing them into their dark rites. Inclusion permits perpetuation.

What's interesting, then, is to watch the tussle that ensues. Do the arriving Wimmin make Rawk or Police Drama truly 'feminine', or are they sucked into some eternal masculinity inscribed all the way through their adopted media? Is femininity erased, or is Rawk? Can a guitar -- or a gun -- ever cease entirely to connote a penis, and can 'raw power' -- or killing -- ever be something that women do better than men? Because, to make up for lost ground, if they're really serious about occupying Rawk as a permanent territory and making it truly feminine, rather than just making themselves accessories to the masculine, women will have to show they rawk or kill at least as well as any man, as naturally, with as much entitlement. And then they're going to have to explain to us why it was worth universalising these values anyway.