News
Joanna Newsom Readies Have One On Me
Stephen Blackwell :: Tuesday, January 19th, 2010 12:40 pm
Joanna Newsom, the effete hippie who in 2008 was overexposed to nauseating tedium, has announced the release of her new album, Have One On Me. It will be released on Drag City February 23rd. Additionally, Newsom has announced a show in New York City on March 18th.
Iām not great at keeping up with dating gossip, but Iām under the impression Newsom is still with Andy Samberg. The significant-other litmus test is a longstanding tradition of the songwriter. I wonder how Samberg reacts when Newsom asks, āHey, you want to hear something Iāve been working on?ā pulls out a gigantic harp, then fiddles away her latest eight-minute esoteric opus? Itās gotta be a bit likeĀ āDraculaās Lament.ā After the first two minutes he probably just starts rolling with it.
Letās grant, just for fun, thatās sheās indeed been overexposed. It seems confused and confusing to peg her overexposure to the year 2008: her last full-length was released in 2006, her last EP was released in 2007, and she played few live shows in 2008. Her songs did pop up in one movie and a couple commercials in 2008-is that the overexposure youāre talking about?
Also, I donāt think youāre using the word āeffeteā correctly. Is there an OED sitting around the offices of Death Plus Sign Taxes?
Posted by: Hollis January 20th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Youāre totally right ā last full length was in 2006. Why all the New York Times write-ups in 2008 for āa few live showsā Iāll never know. Thank god she wasnāt touring. Letās not forget the 2008 Beautiful People Paper cover. She was beautiful in 2006, when her record came out, but she sure as shit wasnāt dating someone famous. Effete, among other things, means overrefined. Itās probably not the best word to use to describe an Armani-wearing, classically trained harpist, right?
Posted by: Stephen Blackwell January 20th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Is your point that her 2008 exposure (and perhaps more importantly, the *sort* of exposure she got) was out of whack with her 2008 productivity? That rather modest point seems a bit more plausible; I just didnāt read the initial post that way, which may be entirely my bad.
Plus, isnāt Bill Callahan sorta famous? I donāt know quite when they broke up, but a lot of the considerable ā06-ā07 JN coverage dealt directly or indirectly with that topic. Anyway, just meant as further evidence that 2008 seems like a strange choice for āYear of Undeserved JN Overexposure.ā Even if Iām right, itās a nitpick. But hey-Iām an asshole.
Speaking of whichā¦āeffeteā: hauling out the trusty Garnerās Modern American Usage, which says that the āsophisticated and snobbishā usage is an instance of slipshod extension from the termās traditional meaning (worn out, barren, exhausted). Garner thinks itās probably best to avoid the term altogether.
But even if we just sub in āoverrefinedā, I still donāt think itās the right word, especially to modify āhippieā, unless one or both of those words is meant ironically. Yes, she wears Armani, and yes, sheās a āclassicallyā trained harpist (though sheās not exactly ReniĆ©). But dude, youāve heard her sing/talk, right? Overrefined people tend not to have prominent speech impediments and singing voices that sound like weird old ladies-and I say this as a rabid Newsom fan.
Anyhow, I hope I donāt come incorrect; your site and magazine are both excellent. All this nitpicking is probably going proxy for a more interesting debate to be had about the aesthetic merit of JNās work. But since I havenāt figured out how to get paid for my thoughts about music yet, Iāll probably just have that debate with myself. Upside: I always win!
Posted by: Hollis January 20th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Well said, Hollis. I think YOU should be writing about Joanna Newsom since Mr. Blackwell clearly isnāt as knowledgeable or objective about her as you are.
(BTW: Blackwellās snarky piece is filed under the NEWS heading, not OPINION.)
Posted by: Bob K. January 21st, 2010 at 11:36 am
Jeez ā remind me to never write an unkind word about Joanna Newsom ever again. Sorry guys! Sheās the best! Iāll have the exact same opinion as everyone else on the planet starting today!
Posted by: Stephen Blackwell January 21st, 2010 at 11:42 am
Maybe Andy Samberg feels privileged to get to hear her play her beautiful songs.. just a thought. He must like her, after all.
Posted by: Jessie January 21st, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Dude-and by ādudeā I mean āMr. Blackwellā-if I got exercised over every āunkind wordā written about JN in the music press, Iād never sleep. Sheās polarizing in about 12 different ways, and Iāve read some merciless takedowns of her stuff that were also thoughtful and well written.
I was just responding to what seemed (to me, anyway) like an oddly-placed, oddly-expressed, not-particularly-thoughtful swipe. Unless I inadvertently invaded the privacy of your modest/chaste soul, there aināt no call for sarcasm.
Posted by: Hollis January 21st, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Hollis, care to link to those thoughtful, merciless takedowns? Iām feeling open minded today.
Posted by: Marygrace January 21st, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Some of them came in email conversations with buddies, so those arenāt linkable. As for the restā¦hoo-boy. My memory is as weak as my Innernette skills, and I dunno whether these comments are HTML-enabled or whatever, but here goes (grits teeth):
Robert Christgauās blurb on Ys is a model of compression and wit (surprise!), even though I heartily disagree with his view. Itās here.
A writeup on Trouser Press isnāt so compressed or so witty, but makes some serious points about the kind of prog-folk JN got into on Ys; thatās here.
Ian Watson wrote a good piece (which, again, to be clear, I totally disagree with) that pushes some rather different buttons; itās here.
Othersā¦I remember a writeup Rolling Stone did when Pitchforkās 2006 list came out-as I recall, it was more merciless than thoughtful, but still pretty well written. The original RS review was unkind. Tim Perlich wrote a fairly harsh review that wasnāt pants-on-head retarded. Would an old-school line break work?
Anyway, thatās all that memory and hasty Googling turns up. Keep in mind all these takedowns are, despite their virtues, terribly mistaken. Now I must click āsubmitā and watch the hyperlinks fail.
Posted by: Hollis January 21st, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Thatās a Roger on the hyperlinks, and a Giant No on the old-school line breaks. Or else I bollocksed those up.
Posted by: Hollis January 21st, 2010 at 6:27 pm
you wrote more than an unkind word- itās a snide little slam piece that isnāt clever, insightful, or anything but hateful.
so you donāt like Joanna Newsom- wow- what an independent thinker. what a renegade you are.
i have to agree you expressed yourself oddly.
āJoanna Newsom was overexposed to nauseating tediumā¦ā
how? By reading your articles?
Posted by: David January 22nd, 2010 at 4:06 pm