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

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.

raw = sounds different to how it would if you spent more time on it

back to bacsics = go back to doing things the way you used to

It hardly proves the line doesn't exist or isn't important, though, does it? I think it comes into the category of 'Rawk doing a Houdini escape act from its own contradictions'. When we think 'Bob Dylan', some of us still think of that moment where he 'goes electric', in other words makes the transition from one claim to authenticity (folk) to a rival claim (rock). (Note: he doesn't abandon authenticity itself, he just switches modes. Mark E. Smith is, I'd say, a different case. His authenticity is, he thinks, a birthright, and derived from being a 'prole'. It's extra-musical. Nothing he can do musically can ever be inauthentic as a result. Drum machines, art gestures, poetry, it's all within his credit limit, his class credibility karma.)

The Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, AC/DC, REM, Status Quo...

...But since rock is a sub-division of pop, the Houdini-like thing rock has to do is change all the time, but make it look like you're staying the same (the Stones, who change more from decade to decade than people realise). Or to change all the time, but emphasise that it's because you're chasing the avant garde essence of rock, its original spirit of rebellion and innovation, which is merely to be found, each year, in a slightly different place (Bowie etc). But mainly, rock abjures change (Status Quo, Oasis) and is quite happy to be a sort of museum piece like the classical orchestral repertoire of dead masters.