Freak Folkies Love Private-Press Records, But Leave Joanna Out Of It
This weekend, the New York Times profiled the burgeoning market for rare, often folk, private-press releases, recorded in the '60s and early '70s, and produced "largely in runs of a few hundred copies and in many cases far less." The article describes the appeal to collectors ("But for music fans who celebrate obscurantist work, a rare gem is only worthwhile when it's properly aged, like a fine Bordeaux") and names a few labels trading in private-press records (Numero Group, Gear Fab, Drag City), but this fun fact is what grabbed us:
But (Gear Fab)'s Honus Wagner baseball card is Perry Leopold’s Experiment in Metaphysics, an album that sells for more than $3,000 on eBay in its original, shrink-wrapped vinyl iteration. Only 200 copies were pressed by Leopold, most of which were given away on a Philadelphia street corner one August afternoon in 1970.Three thousand whaaa? We're looking for someone who's heard Experiment and would be willing to appraise it. Perry himself "doesn't think it's as good as people think it is," but then again, he was "on pot and acid and everything else" when he recorded it (i.e. Either he was too fucked to have recall, or too fucked to have played well.) So, we'll trust your word over his.
But in describing the "freak folk" phenomenon, the Times had to go and bring Joanna into it-- and trust us, she won't be happy. In explaining private-press market dynamics, NYT states:
Much of the demand is being driven by the alternative music scene known as freak folk. An entirely new genus of fan — drawn to a very specific brand of pastoral, loopy acoustic music — has coalesced around this movement, which is spearheaded by young singer-songwriters like Devendra Banhart and Joanna Newsom.True or not, better not say that Joanna's face. She recently told Billboard:
I think some people perceive me to part of a movement or something that I don't really associate myself with. I think there's a lot of fakery, a lot of monkeying and posturing, a handful of kids who just latched right onto what they saw as a scene, and set themselves industriously to the synthesis of a particular vibe, and I'm pretty insulted when I occasionally get credited in the press for having anything to do with the dissemination of that vibe... I'm not part of some epic, bracelet-clanking, eyes-rolled-back, blasé, nihilistic scenester cult or anything. I've seen some awful displays, let me tell you. I've gone to some shows that have left me feeling heartbroken about the state of music. A soulless, mindless, watered-down, image-obsessed, artless stab at John Fahey or Marc Bolan or Karen Dalton or Donovan or Vashti Bunyan is no less lame than, like, Nickelback or whatnot. There are so many kids who have this energy, you know -- you can tell they were into, like, electroclash five minutes ago, or whatever was big in Williamsburg or Berlin at the time, and now they've grown their beards out and they're doing this thing that they think they understand, but they don't understand at all, and I just find it exhausting to have to consider what they do "music."Yeah, she can write a mean harp tune, but who knew our favorite Newsom gave such great sound bite? (For the record, she doesn't help her case by being signed to Drag City, but we argue not with such eloquent, scenester tongue-lashings.) Someone should ask her what she makes of this North Korea nonsense.
Posted at 12:17 PM
Tags: Devendra Banhart | Joanna Newsom
-->
-->
drag city has been around a lot longer than this BS. i would say that's a vote in her direction, smarty pants.
Score = 0
i'm glad SOMEONE finally said that. i'm glad it was her, too.
Score = 0
whatever. don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Score = 0
right on Joanna! I saw Devendra for the first time after Rejoice in the Hands came out and it was awe-inspiring. This quiet guy who seemed to have been unearthed from a Guthrie dustbowl reminding me of an alternate reality in which Charles Manson had enough musical talent to make a go of a folk career. I had never seen anything quite like it. Then I saw him at Bimbo's after Cripple Crow came out and he had turned into Charles Manson - a stupid freaky cult leader with idiotic dribblings of songs and little discernable talent. I still feel kind of dirty listening to long-haired child. "Freak folk" is the worst thing to happen to good music in a long time.
Score = 0
But Animal Collective are the best band in the world.
Score = 0
HYP
O
CRITE
HYPOCRITE.
I am sorry but reading that pissed me off that she could go after other bands (almost seemed to be be picking on grizzly bear) for falling into a genre that is much more with the times. The one thing that really irked me though was her "5 minutes ago they were into..." comment. Have you heard her first band? THE PLEASED. A POST-PUNK BAND. This was 2002. It's cute that she is attempting to erase her recent history, and fabricate a mythical musical past that only includes listening to the most obscure of folk music. With Joanna it's simply not the case. It's one thing to admit that with the times we're living in, folk music makes more sense than it did 5 years ago, and it's another thing to say you have always felt that way. I am all for calling out poseurs on a bandwagon, as will enevitably happen with any new musical movement, but the way she comes off(knowing her past) is just laughable. Devendra Banhart is my favorite artist and I respect everything he has done, he is what I believe she has convinced herself she is. With any movement comes a group of simultaneously influenced musicians with similar or connecting sounds. I think that "freak folk" is one of the most promising genres of music to come along in quite some time, and the artists are generally and genuinely penning some of the finest albums in decades. However, I will not delude myself into thinking that the current movement wasn't a response or awakening to earlier sounds in their youth. Andy Cabic used to play in a band that resembled Sunny Day Real Estate. Joannas sound now is possibly the exact opposite of her interpol obsessed zeitgest sound of the moment. It was a cold and lifeless genre, and she readjusted her take on music. If your sound now was a response and escape from what you used to play, say it, it makes you come off as ingenuine if you're not telling the truth. Look what the music they cite as references came out of and escaped from, it's no less embarassing, and all the more empowering.
Score = 0
joanna didn't write the music for the pleased. she played in the band, i'd assume, because you don't say no when your significant other asks you to please do something for them, something they happen to care about. that doesn't mean she liked the music. we are the doctor, indeed.
"...fabricate a mythical musical past that only includes listening to the most obscure of folk music...
such as? in joanna's case, her two most frequently cited non-classical influences happen to be fleetwood mac (for reasons beyond my comprehension) and neil young. the whole vashti cult was cultivated by the would-be king of the neo-hippies himself. he is the one to be pointing fingers at, if any are to be pointed. not at joanna. all she's ever done is pour her heart out in incomprehensible, inimitable fashion through her pen, her harp, and her voice, which never ceases to be mocked even to this day among journalists who pay her lip service but get their elbow nudge in on the side.
yeah, she likes thrift dresses. yeah she buys cool headresses on ebay. so what? what's your point? does she have to fit into a carefully delineated scene just so you can feel validated? does she have to pretend, ad infinitum, not to be annoyed, confused, or even disgusted at the inanity with which she is unfailingly classified and categorized? no. she's going her own way. like it or not. now go back and bow before the neo-hippie emperor with no clothes.
Score = 0
She still contributed to a sound vastly different than her own now. Your argument kind of fell apart there in the last 2 paragraphs. The last going off on an entirely unrelated tangent. I was merely pointing out that in these two statements:
"A soulless, mindless, watered-down, image-obsessed, artless stab at John Fahey or Marc Bolan or Karen Dalton or Donovan or Vashti Bunyan"
and
"and now they've grown their beards out and they're doing this thing that they think they understand, but they don't understand at all,"
Kind of implicitly implies that she, herself, does understand what those other (some obscure) artists
were about. Isn't that the exact definition of influence?
I'll take what Devendra said, "The point is this isn't a set of ideas. This isn't some abstraction. This isn't electroclash. Did music come out of that? Can you think of any songs? Are you going back to it? It was a fad. It was a time. And, I know this thing right now is considered a fad and there's a look to it and all that bullshit but without actual music it will mean nothing in two days." In that, he partly admits there was little blips of unfounded movements before, but the elements of their movement are more substantial and lasting. It's kind of depressing that Indie is this massive all encompassing genre so people can call out "freak folk" as a fad within it and move on. I would like to think that it can stand alone outside of what indie bands are supposed to be and have some breathing room. I'm really curious who those bands were that Joanna was talking about, I've yet to hear many bands that try to replicate the sounds of some of my favorite musicians she mentions. I thought it was too young of a genre to have Devendra ripoffs already? But in response to Joannas statements, Is it not alright for youth to grow up and move into other genres of music? So some people who have in the past listened to one genre of music (questionably exclusively) are forever doomed to ignorance of others? It concerns me that Joanna kind of waves off youthful energy as fleeting. It makes her sound, dare I say, elitest. To me naturalismo seemed all inclusive, and welcoming of other artists. Perhaps this statement was taken out of context (likely) or perhaps not. Either way she seems to be aligning herself with the movement and commenting on it while stating she wants no part of it. It's confusing to me to be able to say that a group of people don't understand the movement, like you do, while claiming that you want no part in the movement?
Score = 0
She should just relax about those "freak folk"\"nu fok"\whatever labels.. if she keeps on releasing records and doing her own thing, the music press will move on from those tags as the other members of that 'scene' diversify or fade away. I'm sure it's frustrating being pigeonholed but well, every musician gets it, to an extent... no point getting pissed off about it or you just draw more attention to the meaningless labels.
Score = 0
By the way, did anyone see Rolling Stone's review of her new album? They gave it all of one dismissive sentence after mistaking it for an 'EP'.. Two stars - ouch. maybe that's one of the reasons why she seems to have been fairly touchy in interviews lately.
Score = 0
Because Rolling Stone reviews are meaningful.
Score = 0
who cares?
Score = 0
rolling stone epitomizes what is wrong with "music" today. music is sound, not image. you use your ears to gauge its value and meaning, not your eyes. this is where the line of demarcation falls between those who understand and those who don't.
Score = 0
First off I didn’t hear the words come from her mouth at all. So I wonder if the words were taken out of context.
Now if they weren’t and she did say that then I don’t really get it.. It's quite judgmental to look at the music scene and just assume everyone you see who enjoys partaking in fashion and dressing up a bit is shallow, living a lie or doesn’t get it.. Is their a generation that didn’t get involved in fashion? Look at the 50's rock and roll Elvis, James dean look. Then came the 60's look, then glam, punk, 80's glam, 90's had grunge and hip hop, on and on blah blah. Devendra didn’t make up the long hair look and the beard, he wasn’t the first to have that look. Joanna wasn’t the first to wear vintage dresses and play a harp.. So really what do they think they “understand” that others who enjoy music don’t? I agree it’s rather pretentious, self righteous, Snobbish, Elitist, etc (you choose the best word )..
Music is supposed to be fun. The bigger and more free the scene is the better chance of an actual Impact music might have on the lives of a generation.
And so what if you're lumped into a category.. Eventually it all gets lumped into the decade category anyway.. (50's music, 60's, 70's)
Music is culture and musicians should be secure enough to understand that people right now are hungry for some form of culture, that’s why they latch on to anything that seems to be a movement.. It frees them from the boring everyday job, school, life that they live in, giving them a sense of belonging and excitement..
It’s only a positive release. I don’t see the need to put people down who enjoy your music just because you think they’re image obsessed hipsters. Is being image obsessed a bad thing by the way?. Were Andy Warhol, Picasso, Dali, Gondry, Da Vinci, not obsessed with imagery? And please to say Joanna at least does not consider image is a joke.. Look at her whole mythical Pixie like facade.. You can’t tell me she was born with that image, she herself calculated the way she wants to look..
Like someone else said, “don’t bite the hand that feeds you” just enjoy that people are joining together to listen to music. Who is Joanna to judge other human beings who breathe, eat, sleep, cry, love, get embarrassed, nervous, and sick just like Joanna does.. She doesn’t have the all ability to know all these people personally and truly understand their character or intentions..
In conclusion to my rambling: I love her music and I really don’t think she would say something like what was quoted.. That’s just completely ridiculous, she’s smarter than that.. I would put more weight on the fact that she was misquoted or talking about something entirely different than the kids who come to her shows.. Like maybe the journalists and critics?
Score = 0