Please send your replies to VegaNet@AOL.COM
Please send your replies to VegaNet@AOL.COM
From: jmora@netcom.com (beej)
To: undertow@law.emory.edu
Subject: Re: days, 99.9 (fwd) - GENRES
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 05:02:11 GMT
This has been an interesting thread to read, about styles and the _Days_ and _99.9 F_ discs.
I like her debut and _99.9 F_ the best, _Days_ the least - I didn't think the songs were as good on _Days_ as on the others, but in light of the discussion here, I'm going to give it a re-listen [that is, when I can pry Aimee Mann's _I'm With Stupid_ off the CD player].
Wendy asked if we wnat Suzanne to be the only one who does "this style of music"... whatever that means. My take on this is that, for example, I see Suzanne <-> folk as Eurythmics <-> synth pop, that is, each artist was identified in one genre and then moved toward a different sound while retaining elements of the original. Listen to _Suzanne Vega_ vs. _99.9 F_, or _Sweet Dreams_ vs. _Be Yourself Tonight_. Suzanne's shift seems to be to a very different sounds - Eurythmics' was maybe not so drastic. Many artists work in "one" genre, or rarely, refuse to be pigeonholed (Prince/ the artist formerly known as Prince).
Ultimately the only reason to have "genres" is to be able to tell which artists are similar, and to try to describe them to others who may not know them. But how *would* you describe, say, Suzanne? "Industrial folk" is really no help - I think of Nine Inch Nails meets Indigo Girls, which I don't think equals Suzanne's music :-) Better to say maybe that "her albums are folky while _99.9 F_ is... ?"
********* psychdoc@netcom.com **************** b.j. mora *****
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 09:41:06 -0500 (EST)
I think it's unfortunate that we have to categorize music at all. I
hypothesiza that the plethora of categorizations which have arisin in the
past few decades were designed by record executives. But however they
came about, they seem to take away from the music too often. Even though
99.9 is very different sound-wise from Suzanne's other albums, lyrically
it is very similar. And most of the songs on 99.9 have their basis on a
guitar, like her other work. I mean, there is obviously a difference in
instrumentation, etc., but overall, I think the album is more similar
than different. I'm with whoever said his/her favorite albums were 99.9
and Suzanne Vega. For me, these two were the most powerful lyrically,
maybe more honest or free, perhaps because in each, Suzanne was
essentially experimenting (one being her debut and the second being
different sylistically). So I think it's really healthy for her to try
out different styles. We all know the music will be of exceptional
calibre regardless.
From: rwalters@zeh2.lafayette.unocal.COM (Rob Walters)
Hello everyone,
Wendy! wrote:
Well, perhaps that's restricting it a bit too far. Although if we absolutely
have to categorize, I think 'urban folk music' fits better. I think if she's
remembered as someone who wrote intelligent, thoughtful songs that address
the human condition, especially as relating to those not 'in power', i.e.
real people who have some 'small story' to tell in their dealings with the
world, she will have accomplished a great deal. Then again, she already has!
Darcy wrote:
Based on the aftermath of the "Luka" phenomenon, I wouldn't get my hopes up.
She certainly received rave reviews, a Grammy nomination and much attention,
but the attitude of the mainstream American press is "What have you done
for me lately?" When no such 'hit' emerged from 'Days', you saw the result.
To some extent, it doesn't matter, since she's achieved success on her own
terms. If you asked her, she'd probably say that peer recognition, artistic
integrity and freedom, and fan loyalty are large components of success.
Not that A&M doesn't want a nice net profit from the next album, though!
>Even if it did catch on...would she get the recognition or would a more
Sadly, I'm afraid the latter would be the case. Worse yet, if SV did happen
to have another hit, she'd likely be accused of 'selling out'! Witness
R.E.M. and their slow, steady rise to superstardom, the media coming around
to *them* and their unique style, rather than Stipe and company compromising
their vision. Now that the alterna- bandwagon has latched on to them, they're
accused of being too commercialized!
-Rob
----------------------------------
To: jwarren
At 09:41 AM 1/27/96 -0500, jwarren wrote:
Please see my earlier post regarding catagorizing music. It is not all and
industry ploy to destruct our enjoyment of the music we listen to.
Sometimes it is important to think deeply about what one is hearing and
sometimes-for some-it is important to understand how it is affecting more
than just ourselves--therefore, one needs ways of defining.
Wendy-Again!
To: jmora@netcom.com (beej)
At 05:02 AM 1/26/96 GMT, beej wrote:
Well, coming from a literary person, one is always looking at genre and how
styles of writing change and break new ground. I think Suzanne is touching
something that has not been previously been touched. I think this is
exciting. Of course, it's different--my question is: What do you think
will happen? This sound may ultimately only be Suzanne's and that's it.
But sometimes, things become larger than that and then they are looked at as
a whole new movement: Folk begets Blues begets Jazz begets etc. New styles
emerge--new genres. No one is pigeon-holing and saying: Suzanne you must
fit here. One is just trying to describe a new sound or movement in music.
In the article I just typed up for the Web, Suzanne is described as
Minimalist. For literary folks--that's a movement in literature that became
popular with Raymond Carver. It eventually moved into a musical world.
Lyrically Suzanne is described as minimalist. What is minimalism: it's
basically a way of writing that leaves out Narrative interference. The
writer throws the reader into the middle of a situation and doesn't tell you
what to think or feel about it--the situation speaks for itself. This style
of writing is different from other styles such as maybe: naturalism or
surrealism etc (Stein even tried to "write" Cubism). What all this is
getting at is my point that these things help to find a way of describing
what is going on in the music. For all you naturalist who want to just
listen and let whatever it is be what it is--someone like me who may be
writing about it or thinking about it must find a way of describing it.
Wendy!
From: "agnostic lobsters, tithing crabs"
BJ writes:
> >Ultimately the only reason to have "genres" is to be able to tell
While I haven't had to describe Suzanne to anyone lately (she seems
to be pretty much a household name, even to people who know nothing
more about her than the "folk singer" label and all that that
implies to them), I guess I would start with folk and say "but ..."
I'd talk about the biting, precise, spare, poetic lyrics, the
sometimes violent imagery and preoccupation with (in)sanity, the
wonderful melodies, the odd textures of 99.9F.
I think Suzanne is practically sui generis, in that I can't think of
a category that she fits into perfectly. She's a female songwriter
but definitely not what I would call a "women's artist" (I did once
hear Big Spaces on the women's music show on WMNF in Tampa, but that
was because of this really cool programmer who's always playing
Heavens to Betsy and riot grrrl bands and such, which isn't that
show's usual format). I've never heard her on any of the folk shows
that are always playing John Gorka, Shawn Colvin, Trout Fishing In
America and the like (what you could call "NPR folk" if you were
looking for a crude tag). I agree that "industrial folk" conjures up
inappropriate images, like Trent Reznor singing Kumbaya.
"Alternative folk" may come closest -- there certainly seemed an
attempt in the marketing of 99.9F to reposition her as an alternative
artist instead of a folk singer, since the one is a lot more saleable
than the other. But I think a fair number of people would use that
category for people like Lou Barlow, Lois, etc., while leaving
Suzanne out because she's not on an indie label.
"Urban folk" is the description I immediately thought of when I first
heard her. I don't know that her recent stuff is all necessarily
urban, though. "Bad Wisdom" could be happening in any suburb or small
town in the world.
The attempt to define Suzanne is probably ultimately self-limiting;
she pretty clearly writes music that means something to her and
worries later about how to package it. (This doesn't seem to be true
of all musicians, at least judging from all those "Need a drummer --
we sound like so-and-so -- must like these bands" notices I see
posted in record stores.) Obviously everyone has templates they start
out following, but those can change. She has said that she started
writing folk songs because that's what she was listening to at the
time. The solo-acoustic-guitar thing is also probably one of the
easier (or only) ways for a teenage girl to get started in music in
such a way that she's the one in charge. As she's grown, Suzanne has
been able to have a band where she calls the shots, and also has
access to a lot more studio equipment and a lot more ways to make
music. So she has more avenues to explore.
What's interesting is that no matter how she's changed, she always
sounds like herself, not like someone aping a style she's totally
unsuited for. When I first listened to 99.9F, I was struck first by
the "industrial" sound, but then by line "it would snap that thin
thread I call my horizon." Only in a Suzanne Vega song would the
horizon be a thread in danger of snapping!
I think for now, we'll just have to call the genre "Suzanne Vega."
It's interesting that the musicians she most admires are in pretty
much the same situation -- just try to think of a label that
summarizes Lou Reed or Leonard Cohen.
And Wendy retorts:
> This sound may ultimately only be Suzanne's and that's it.
I think to have a movement you need movers, and I'm not aware of
anyone out there, much less any sort of critical mass, trying to
write songs in the manner of Suzanne Vega. I almost suspect that the
things that make her so special are so subtle and idiosyncratic that
they're beyond imitation. It's not a matter of sticking soft female
vocals in front of an abrasive industrial background and saying,
Voila!, the 99.9 school of songwriting.
Also, folk-into-blues-into-jazz-into-rock (actually a series of
parallel evolutions that crossfed into one another) were relatively
glacial changes, not at all a matter of one artist coming forward and
changing the world. Even subgenres like, say, bebop, free jazz, progressive
rock, metal, punk, were all matters of various people coalescing. Did
Charlie Parker singlehandedly create a genre? Or Miles Davis? Or
Coltrane? (I know _nothing_ about jazz, so I guess these aren't
purely rhetorical questions.) Or were they just master practitioners
of the form?
It's entirely likely that in 10 or 20 years it will be obvious to
everyone that Suzanne was either a leader or member of an
influential musical genre that came to prominence in the '80s and
'90s. One problem may be that music is so balkanized now (folk fans
don't listen to indie rock, who don't listen to adult alternative,
who don't listen to blues, who don't listen to country) that
musicians who have a lot in common are never listened to by the same
people. Artists are stuck in genres for marketing purposes and then
get limited to certain clubs, radio stations, etc.
> In the article I just typed up for the Web, Suzanne is described as
Didn't musical minimalism come first, in the work of people like
Philip Glass, Steve Reich, etc?
> Lyrically Suzanne is described as minimalist. What is minimalism: it's
And far be it from me to argue with an English major, but didn't
Joyce do the same thing in _Ulysses_, which isn't anyone's idea of
minimalist? You certainly don't have the Voice of God narrator
telling you, "Today is a very bad day for young Stephen Dedalus.
First he gets locked out of his house, now some drunken bloke in
Nighttown is about to slug him upside the head!" (I think I've seen
_Ulysses_ described as a mixture of symbolist and realist, not that
that's relevant here.)
I think one obvious characteristic of minimalism is that it's
*short*. Not a lot happens (goes the common complaint) because
there's not a lot of space for things to happen in; I've seen
minimalist short stories that were just a few paragraphs. The stories
also seem to lack really obvious Joycean "epiphanies" ("My eyes
burned in anguish and anger"), perhaps in an attempt to better
reflect the way life happens. It seems almost like haiku, which
classically is not supposed to contain action, metaphor, simile, etc.
I also recall that Carver resisted being labeled a minimalist, even
though he's the writer most popularly associated with the movement.
I'd sort of resist tagging Suzanne with the label also, partly
because of the negative connotations but mostly because there
already seem to be enough precedents in poetry for what she does.
Suzanne's writing has always struck me as deeply poetic in a way few
songwriting is -- that is, spare, precise, saying so much with so
few words, with the occasional odd metaphor that seems so absurd but
so absolutely _right_ ("When the darkness takes you with her hand
across your face ...").
If we're going to compare songwriting with literature, I guess you
could say that there's a naturalistic school of narrative-style
songwriting (Springsteen, etc.), surrealism/dadaism (some Dylan,
though he does narratives also; some Laurie Anderson), and so forth.
I always thought Natalie Merchant would have made a great Victorian
novelist, especially judging by the Wishing Chair-era 10,000 Maniacs
songs. And of course commercial radio is filled with an unfortunate
number of songs in the bumper sticker genre (bumper stickers of the
lame "My kid can beat up your honor student" school).
OK, that's enough for me! I'm off to the website to go listen to
"Caramel."
-- Bob, going out on enough limbs to reforest the Pacific Northwest
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 12:41:00 -0800 (PST)
On Sat, 17 Feb 1996, agnostic lobsters, tithing crabs wrote:
> "Urban folk" is the description I immediately thought of when I first
I like "Urban Folk" and I think the desire to say one of her songs fits
in and another doesn't because it could "happen" anywhere is missing the
point. I think that "Urban Folk" is a great description because Suzanne
is influenced by the city around her and her writing comes out of that.
It's gritty yet beautiful--I see most cities in that light. I like the
"Urban Folk" thing.
> I think to have a movement you need movers, and I'm not aware of
Ah, but let's remember that many folk singers are coming from Urban
environments now and while, yes, I agree that Suzanne remains unique. I
think that time will tell what shape this folk music from the urban
environment will take. What about the next generation?
> Also, folk-into-blues-into-jazz-into-rock (actually a series of
I think one must go back back back into the history of music to
understand that these did not necessarily crossfeed each other until
later. Folk music has been around for a long time--Joyce has irish folk
songs in his writing. I still believe that Folk Music is the Mother of
all music and that things spawned from it and as these new genres gained
momentum they did crossfeed one another.
> Didn't musical minimalism come first, in the work of people like
Actually, I think lit came first--but I could be wrong.
> And far be it from me to argue with an English major, but didn't
Joyce was not a minimalist.
> I also recall that Carver resisted being labeled a minimalist, even
Who says it is negative to be a minimalist. Because Raymond Carver--who
personnaly, I believe, thought much too much of himself, didn't want to
be a minimalist. Because maybe some people have said negative things
about it...nein. I have a very posative feeling about minimlism--and
this is personal taste--some people like to be told what they should be
feeling or thinking about a certain situation.
The brilliance of Raymond Carver was in what appeared to be the
simplicity of his writing but was actually the interacacy of his
writing. One has to pause at the end of a Carver story and think about
what they are feeling. Then one must go back and read it again and
rethink what they are feeling.
This is Suzanne's music. It seems simple--with her voice--almost a
whisper, the guitar, it is almost as if she is speaking: they lyrics:
Something is cracking/I don't know where/Ice on the sidewalk/Brittle
branches in the air... But afterwards, one must go back and think about
what is cracking, is the narrator cracking, the reader, hmmm. The
complexities of minimalism make it a viable movement in literature and
music--it also makes minimalism--I believe--on of the most complex
movements. I like not being told what to think. I love when the writer
takes themselves out and leaves the reader to bring their own experiences
to the piece.
Wendy!
P.S. Just so you all know, I purposefully use "their" and "they're" as
singular gender non-specific terms. Thank you and don't send any grammar
messages.
To: Wendy Chapman
The other Woman For Whom We All Kill (our beloved colleague Wendy,
of course) writes:
> I like "Urban Folk"
OK. Remember you read it here first :)
> Ah, but let's remember that many folk singers are coming from Urban
All right, but here you're talking about folk music influenced by
the urban environment, not necessarily influenced by Suzanne Vega.
She's certainly not the first folk singer to come out of a big city
and write about city life (Dylan was living in NYC for a good part
of his career, wasn't he? "Subterranean Homesick Blues" sure ain't
"What forsooth now, Lord Randolph, my son"), though she certainly
takes it in unaccustomed directions. I'm just not sure it's a
direction that anyone else is following -- at least enough to
constitute a movement. That's not to say it's any less valuable; it
may be why she's all the more necessary.
I think we also have to examine to what extent what she writes is
even really folk music. Is it folk just because that's what she
started out as and so that's what we're used to calling her, or
because we can't think of another name for a woman playing an
acoustic guitar (at least one not wearing a cowboy hat)? Would we
call an album like 99.9F "folk" if anyone but Suzanne had written it?
One way I'd still call her a folk singer is that she writes about the
stories and travails of ordinary people -- not love ballads, scorned
angry lover diatribes, homages to how much she likes to rock, and the
rest of what fills up so much of what passes for popular music. In a
sad commentary on the other genres, folk is probably one of the only
places where we find tales of everyday life. But the other genres
have their moments, too. Was "Eleanor Rigby" a folk song because it
dealt with two lonely people? If Suzanne wrote a song like that,
would we call it folk? (Probably.) How about if she wrote a song like
"Tomorrow Never Knows"? (Probably.) What about "Helter Skelter"? (Um,
maybe.)
If she's not folk, what is she? And what would the imagined
songwriters following her footsteps be doing? I'm sure there are
some, but I'm not sure they would necessarily be folk singers. Maybe
there's a punk band in a basement somewhere listening to _Solitude
Standing_ until the needle wears through the disc and going "Wow,
listen to those lyrics! Let's us write some songs like that." We'd
have Suzanne-influenced music (or at least words), but not
necessarily a genre or new form of music.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I agree with you that genres
are useful/necessary ways of categorizing music so we can discuss
it. I'm sure we both agree that there are countless "genre" artists
(those who stay within the narrow boundaries of the category,
produce the usual rote/OK stuff but never challenge the ground
rules) and those, like Suzanne, who transcend the idiom they work
in. I'm just not sure we're past the "hey, we have a bunch of chicks
like Tracy Chapman playing guitars, so they must be like a
continuation of that 1987 Suzanne Vega 'Luka' thing" mentality that
the press had several years back.
(Am I making ANY sense?)
As a last comment on "Urban folk," I'd say the classical definition
of folk music (unwritten music by anonymous authors passed by word
of mouth) would certainly have to include at least the early version
of rap, when kids in the inner cities were standing on streetcorners
in the '70s making up rhymes and trying to outdo each other (at about
the time when rock critics were sitting around moaning about how
everything there was to do in music had been done). Whether rap still
qualifies as folk is probably debatable, but certainly the stylistic
impact has been enormous.
> I still believe that Folk Music is the Mother of all music and
I agree.
> > Didn't musical minimalism come first, in the work of people like
Well, I don't know either. So I guess I should stop arguing.
> Joyce was not a minimalist.
I wasn't saying he was. I was just observing that your definition of
minimalism did not seem to exclude works like _Ulysses_. (In other
words, I was just being a nitpicking pain in the ass.)
> > I also recall that Carver resisted being labeled a minimalist, even
Carver probably disliked being called a minimalist for the same
reason Nirvana hated being referred to as "grunge." You work all
your life to create something, and then a critic somewhere slaps a
label on it and declares you the flavor of the month.
I think the reason others dislike minimalism is the feeling that
"there's no there there" -- that the brevity is (as it certainly can
be in the wrong hands) an excuse for having nothing to say. The same
people might like longer, more substantial stories that still don't
tell you what you should think.
I really don't know that much about minimalism, or even Carver. Who
else besides him would you recommend?
> The brilliance of Raymond Carver was in what appeared to be the
Sounds a lot like poetry to me. Is that minimalism -- the techniques
of poetry applied to fiction?
OK, this is WAY past my bedtime. Let's pick this up tomorrow.
-- Bob, nodding off
"Zzzzzzzzzzz"
Date: 19 Feb 96 06:28:34 EST
19 February 1996
Well, not for the first time, Bob King's comments have gotten me to break my
cyber-silence.
He asks:
>does anyone else out there have any thoughts on Kate and Anna McGarrigle?
For years I've been a fan, and I've seen them perform at the Bottom Line in New
York several times. Their writing is sharp and penetrating, and their singing
can tear you apart as well as chill you to the bone. I remember hearing
"Mendocino" for the first time in a concert--I was devastated. I am still
amazed by its breadth of vision and brevity of words. All of their albums are
good, and their latest, which I don't have on hand, so I can't give you the
title, is wonderfully produced. Their music is folkier in a traditional sense
than most things I listen to--certainly the French Canadian stuff is--but the
emotional directness of their writing strikes me as quite modern.
Which brings me to Bob King's other comments about musical genres.
I've always preferred to think of folk music in the way that one describes folk
art. That is, somewhat or altogether untutored, naive (in an unpejorative way),
sometimes taking its cues from "high art," but clearly not of that context.
Much folk art is ethnic or culturally outside the western canon. Folk art has
often had an influence, however, on much of what we know as modern art--from
Picasso to Miro to Johns.
I think of folk songs as first and foremost part of an oral tradition that has
been to great extent supplanted by the media-oriented context of contemporary
culture. Documented folk music continues to influence--from English ballads to
Cowboy songs to the Blues--and in recent years there's been a tremendous
interest in folk music from far flung places, especially Africa.
My quick and dirty e-mail thesis is that what we do today in rock and popular
music is not folk music in the traditional sense. It is a post-war synthesis of
musical and lyrical styles. Music production and distribution is dominated by
giant corporations, and most of us are far too self-conscious about what we
create to really be folk artists. In that light, I do not regard Suzanne as a
folk singer any more than I regard Curt Cobain or Eddie Vedder folk singers.
Strip away the band arrangements and productions and what you have are lyrics
laid over a few chords--simple song structures--but a wonderfully complex art
form that can lead to many diverse results. Connect that simple song structure
to the long history of folk ballads if you like--I certainly do--but then do you
call all of it from Nirvanna to SV folk music?
I suppose you could make an argument that all of this popular music we listen to
is folk music. Maybe someday people will look back on these days and talk about
when white middle class kids hung out in suburban garages playing music, and
black low income kids sat on benches in the projects rhyming. Sure. That's
possible. Go ahead and follow that line of thinking. But it doesn't really
help us understand the genre defining and type casting we are engaged in today.
Most of the genre labels I think are just attempts at differentiating styles,
influences, and communities. These labels can be helpful in describing what
someone is doing, but they can just as often--I would say more often--limit the
scope of what one is trying to do. Some people glady accept these definitions.
There's a whole group of people out there who listen or play something called
folk music, or singer songwriter folk music, or, as Bob King mentioned "NPR
folk." It's all over the net.
(A note for non-US undertowers: NPR stands for National Public Radio, produced
with a combination of public funds and private donations--no advertising. It
has an excellent news program called All Things Considered, and it carries
musical and other public affairs programming.)
The music is generally acoustic, narrative ballad songwriting--kind of like what
Suzanne does. But why isn't Suzanne in the club? Why don't those University
radio shows play The Queen and the Soldier after they play a song by Mary Chapin
Carpenter or John Gorka? Why does a solo piano piece by John Cale not fit in?
Tom Waits? No, that doesn't fit, apparently. (One of the things that makes the
Dead Man Walking soundtrack interesting and unusual is that it brings together a
bunch of songwriters who are never put together in the same musical context.)
I would argue that what is often called folk is a musical community and a
musical ideology. It's difficult to define it exactly, but everyone in that
community recognizes each other--both listeners and musicians. Sure, within that
community people have other tastes and interests. But there is something that
binds them together. I'm not going to attempt to define it. It is without a
doubt white middle and upper middle class, college educated, socially concerned,
but in my opinion a bit conservative when it comes to music. It's music to share
with other like-minded people, and it soothes the twinge of guilt that comes
with privelege and social awareness.
"Urban folk," I suppose, is an attempt at describing a style of music that is
derived from the folk ballad tradition, but is practiced within a sophisticated
modern context. I always liked the idea of "folk rock" because it implied
rock--in a softer place. Unfortunately, it sounds too Sixtiesish now, too much
like Crosby, Still and Nash or Jackson Browne--and before anyone get
offended--all who have done worthy things. But I still feel that rock and roll
is at the core of what so many of us do today despite all the genre parsing and
market positioning. Nothing we do now would exist without the canon of Elvis,
Chuck Berry, The Beatles, Dylan, The Rolling Stones, James Brown, Van Morrison,
The Velvet Underground, and on into the great musical miasma of the '70s and
'80s. I was in the big Virgin record store the other day in Amsterdam, and I
noticed to my shock, that a small corner of the immense shop was reserved for
something called Rock and Roll. You know, that '50s stuff.
Suzanne has always wanted to transcend the folk label--especially the dreaded
NPR folk label. She has succeeded in part because she broke through--or crossed
over--onto the pop charts. Pop music is so general and unspecific a label that
almost anyone fits. Once you're pop you're on fairly safe terrain. No one can
stick your records in some Folk ghetto--where only the true believers and fellow
travellers know where to look--like they do in Tower Records in New York. I
guess I don't mind seeing Blues in one spot and Country Western in another.
That's helpful. But when they put you in Folk, it definitely means you've been
banished to some other time and place.
Please forgive me for all this mumbling and grumbling bandwidth. I realize I
haven't solved any problems or illuminated any dark rooms. I also agree that
David--who has no need to apologize for his English--comes close to the heart of
Suzanne's music, and whether it is folk or some other genre is pretty much
beside the point.
>This is the poetry of simple things. Look around you, there is poetry in
That's right. She definitely didn't need me to write such a wonderful song.
But if it's okay, I don't mind serving as an excuse.
Brian Rose
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 09:03:36 -0800 (PST)
On Mon, 19 Feb 1996, agnostic lobsters, tithing crabs wrote:
> All right, but here you're talking about folk music influenced by
Yes, you are right.
> I think we also have to examine to what extent what she writes is
Yes, she has gone beyond just Folk music. And maybe we should stop
thinking of her in that mode and like some have been arguing give up to
the idea that she does or should fit anywhere. She is simply unique.
> Carver probably disliked being called a minimalist for the same
Remember that literary theory and crticism while being connected are
different as well. When in an academic situation there is a need to
describe things. Minimalism is just one way. I think someone like
Carver should be glad that his work is actually being taken seriously.
Nirvana as well. I personally would love, if I was a writer, for it to
be taken seriously in an academic situation. But sometimes I think
people like Carver have no respect for that--even though it's what kept
him in booze.
> Sounds a lot like poetry to me. Is that minimalism -- the techniques
Not necessarily--Virgil, Homer, and Ovid were poets as well as Dante and
there is pleanty of the narrative interference. Oh, and lets not forgety
Milton. Poetry is not minimalism--although there are poets who would fit
into this area.
I am enjoying our banter. This list hasn't been so exciting in a while.
It's nice to have someone to nit pic w/ again.
Wendy!
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 11:46:18 -0800 (PST)
Wow--this has been a busy place. I was overwhelmed when I got
in this morning (happily).
I wasn't up to the editting necessary to include Bob's text, so
hopefully you can all link my comments to his.
I have always felt minimalistic art/music had a lot of open space, and
that was what made it minimalistic in the first place. A sparce detachment
that allows the art to expand and reveal bits and pieces at a time, and
allows you to fill in the empty spaces in whatever way you see fit.
Suzanne's music is very *emotionally* minimalistic, as it allows you
to fill in the blanks based on the circumstances described, but
those circumstances are very vividly described in detail. So is it
really minimalistic at all?
Regarding the Balkenization (please clue in my ignorant brain--where
did this come from) of music...I personally don't see it, and I certainly
hope that I'm more the norm than the exception. I'm quite happy to
have Suzanne's music sitting right beside my King Chrimson, sitting right
beside my Hole, sitting right beside my Funkadelic.
Variety is the spice o' life. Suzanne is great, but I can't scream at
the top of my lungs to her, and it's pretty hard to dance to. Although
maybe those Soul Coughing boys will help out in that arena.
Darcy
Subject: Re: Suzanne and genres
Darcy Van Patten wrote:
> I have always felt minimalistic art/music had a lot of open space, and
In a sense, yes it is. I always think of Raymond Carver stories as being in
the same vein of Suzanne's writing. He gives you plenty of detail, describing
the actions, setting, etc but leaves it up to you to fill in the details (ie -
what the protagonist is really upset about, what exactly is this persons
emotional state and how does their actions lead you to this). In a way, SV
music and RC stories are as good as some of the best mystery/who did it
stories. That's why I was a bit disappointed in Short Cuts - some of them
didn't jive with what I saw as the story (and not that it was really bad - just
certain stories). I think we've seen this plenty of times on this list -
everyone has the same starting material (Suzanne's songs) and we fill it in
with what we want - and sometimes it doesn't agree with others, which makes for
some interesting threads here.
> Variety is the spice o' life. Suzanne is great, but I can't scream at
Well, last party I was at had Blood Makes Noise and I can tell you that it
being (what I thought) was one of the more dancable SV tracks cleared the dance
floor - however people were singing along so I guess it counts for something.
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 16:17:35 -0800 (PST)
On Tue, 20 Feb 1996, Darcy Van Patten wrote:
> I have always felt minimalistic art/music had a lot of open space, and
Yes, this is true.
> Suzanne's music is very *emotionally* minimalistic, as it allows you
Minimalism isn't about how well something is described, its more about
narrative influence. I think we've seen just in the discussion the last
few days of Bad Wisdom how minimalist it is. Suzanne, even when
interviewed about a song, will not tell anyone what to think about it.
Though her images are vivid--my favorite: The sun is fading fast/Upon
the slides into the past/Upon the swings of indecision... don't not
necessarily reflect a narrative interference. These lines could be
interpretted a million ways depending on the mood of the listener and
even the mood of the person writing it or singing it.
Just recently, I've been listening to bits and pieces of the 99.9 tour.
It amazed me the different feel some of the older songs had--the
different emotional response I had to them just because they were
arranged a little differently--In particular, there is a stunning version
of Luka on that tape.
Wendy!
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 16:40:04 -0800 (PST)
On Tue, 20 Feb 1996, Wendy Chapman wrote:
> Minimalism isn't about how well something is described, its more about
There is a lot of narrative that is quite open as well, though, but I
suppose in a different way. Like you read a narrative about a massive
moony wedding taking place in Yankee stadium, and at the surface that's
what it's about, but underlying are whole other inferences to crowd
ethics and identity and anonimity. I know that's different, but my
point is that even a direct narrative style can leave a lot to inference
and interpretation.
....and I got to bring up one of my favorite books. Not that I'm
prepared to discuss literature with you Wendy. I will remain the science
nerd for now.
> Just recently, I've been listening to bits and pieces of the 99.9 tour.
I remember someone writing awhile back that with Suzanne's first album
he could hear the songs in his head and with days and 99.9, he could
mainly hear the arrangement. I guess I hear arrangement in all of
them--I mean, would straight lines be the same without the urgency of
the guitar? I coule easily see how a different arrangement would make
me feel differently.
Perhaps if I ever manage to see her live, I'll get the opportunity to find
out.
Darcy
To: undertow@law.emory.edu
Wendy Chapman
>It amazed me the different feel some of the older songs had--the
you can go back to the _days of open hand_ tour as well. i never really
"got" "wooden horse" until i saw her and the band play it as an encore
at the chance in poughkeepsie ("wayne!") on that tour. wow. i was left
totally speechless.
woj
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 20:52:44 -0800 (PST)
On Tue, 20 Feb 1996, Darcy Van Patten wrote:
> I mean, would straight lines be the same without the urgency of
Darcy,
I agree. I think arangement is important. And I know I'm beating a dead
horse, but that is one of the things I so loved about "Days..." I loved
how the arrangement of the songs invoked certain images too or helped to
invoke the images that the lyrics were getting at. This has come up
before and I know I'm going to get blasted...but I still love how the
music on Institution Green as a Militiristic beat and I also love the way
the background vocals rise during the bridge to a tension until they like
break. It really brings the images of the song--frustration, anger,
anonimity, etc to the surface.
Wendy!
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 11:18:13 -0800 (PST)
On Tue, 20 Feb 1996, William Vaughan wrote:
> I always think of Raymond Carver stories as being in
Yes, this is what I've been trying to say. Thank you.
Wendy!
From: "agnostic lobsters, tithing crabs"
Michael Sturm proffers:
> discussion's getting to a crucial point: does an artist try to
Kafka supposedly said something like: "Being well read doesn't mean
reading a lot of books. It means reading one book, but reading it
fully." I guess this logic sort of falls apart if the book is _The
Way Things Ought to Be_ by Rush Limbaugh, but anyway....
What's probably hardest for an artist to do is to follow her/his muse
honestly wherever it leads, without either circling around endlessly
in the same rut or shallowly chasing new styles just because they're
hot. But I have no idea how to define where that line lies; the whole
question of creativity and where it comes from and when it works and
when it doesn't is so terrifying that I'm amazed that anyone gets it
right.
Some musicians stay in the same genre their whole careers (Muddy
Waters, Raymond Chandler, etc.) but find new ways to work within it.
Others just grow stale; does the world need yet another Pretenders
album in which Chrissie Hynde tries futilely to do what she did in
'80 and '83?
Still others find success in rapid shifts of identity ('90s U2,
Remain In Light-era Talking Heads, Tori Amos turning from lame
headbanger gal to piano goddess, etc.) Others just change styles like
suits of clothes without ever getting past the surface (the
accusation critics made against Joni Mitchell when she refused to
keep churning out copies of Blue and instead meandered into jazz).
So whether Suzanne stays with folk or moves into other genres is
really, I suppose, a question of what's right for her. I certainly
don't think that having an album in every conceivable genre is a
necessary sign of a great artist; I won't think any less of her if
she never puts out a gangsta rap album. But she certainly showed a
propensity in 99.9F to jump off a few cliffs, as she put it. I
wouldn't be surprised to see her do it again.
By the way -- yes, you DO want to track down that album. Kill if you
must! (OK, wound.)
> be sure about suzanne never fooling you like vegas-elvis
I dunno. I always thought of Suzanne as a Hunka Hunka Burnin' Coolly
Detatched Observation.
-- Bob King, but not The King
P.S. I just had an idea: "The King and the Soldier," in which the
soldier walks not into the queen's castle but into Graceland to
confront Elvis. Just think of the possibilities. Or has that already
been done?
VegaNet@aol.com
From: jwarren
To: Undertow
Subject: 99.9
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 96 15:57:00 CST
To: undertow@law.emory.edu
Subject: RE: days, 99.9 (fwd)
>...-or would it be cooler if others caught on and in the history books
> 20 years from now Suzanne's name comes up as the one who was on the
> cutting edge of Industrial Folk music?
>Well, it would be really nice for Suzanne to get the recognition she
>deserves. I don't know, though, if the majority of people are ready for
>her brand of thoughtful music.
>mainstream version of it be remembered as breaking the ground?
rwalters@zeh2.lafayette.unocal.com
*any opinion expressed or information provided is my own and not that of
my employer*
From: wendy chapman
Subject: Re: 99.9
Cc: Undertow
>I think it's unfortunate that we have to categorize music at all. I
>hypothesiza that the plethora of categorizations which have arisin in the
>past few decades were designed by record executives. But however they
>came about, they seem to take away from the music too often. Even though
>99.9 is very different sound-wise from Suzanne's other albums, lyrically
>it is very similar. And most of the songs on 99.9 have their basis on a
>guitar, like her other work. I mean, there is obviously a difference in
>instrumentation, etc., but overall, I think the album is more similar
>than different. I'm with whoever said his/her favorite albums were 99.9
>and Suzanne Vega. For me, these two were the most powerful lyrically,
>maybe more honest or free, perhaps because in each, Suzanne was
>essentially experimenting (one being her debut and the second being
>different sylistically). So I think it's really healthy for her to try
>out different styles. We all know the music will be of exceptional
>calibre regardless.
From: wendy chapman
Subject: Re: days, 99.9 (fwd)
Cc: undertow@law.emory.edu
>Ultimately the only reason to have "genres" is to be able to tell
>which artists are similar, and to try to describe them to others who
>may not know them. But how *would* you describe, say, Suzanne?
>"Industrial folk" is really no help - I think of Nine Inch Nails meets
>Indigo Girls, which I don't think equals Suzanne's music :-) Better
>to say maybe that "her albums are folky while _99.9 F_ is... ?"
To: wendy chapman
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 09:46:35 +0000
Subject: Suzanne and genres
Cc: undertow@law.emory.edu
> >which artists are similar, and to try to describe them to others who
> >may not know them. But how *would* you describe, say, Suzanne?
> >"Industrial folk" is really no help - I think of Nine Inch Nails meets
> >Indigo Girls, which I don't think equals Suzanne's music :-) Better
> >to say maybe that "her albums are folky while _99.9 F_ is... ?"
> But sometimes, things become larger than that and then they are looked at as
> a whole new movement: Folk begets Blues begets Jazz begets etc. New styles
> emerge--new genres.
> Minimalist. For literary folks--that's a movement in literature that became
> popular with Raymond Carver. It eventually moved into a musical world.
> basically a way of writing that leaves out Narrative interference. The
> writer throws the reader into the middle of a situation and doesn't tell you
> what to think or feel about it--the situation speaks for itself.
From: Wendy Chapman
To: "agnostic lobsters, tithing crabs"
Cc: undertow@law.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Suzanne and genres
> heard her. I don't know that her recent stuff is all necessarily
> urban, though. "Bad Wisdom" could be happening in any suburb or small
> town in the world.
> anyone out there, much less any sort of critical mass, trying to
> write songs in the manner of Suzanne Vega. I almost suspect that the
> things that make her so special are so subtle and idiosyncratic that
> they're beyond imitation. It's not a matter of sticking soft female
> vocals in front of an abrasive industrial background and saying,
> Voila!, the 99.9 school of songwriting.
> parallel evolutions that crossfed into one another) were relatively
> Philip Glass, Steve Reich, etc?
> Joyce do the same thing in _Ulysses_, which isn't anyone's idea of
> minimalist? You certainly don't have the Voice of God narrator
> telling you, "Today is a very bad day for young Stephen Dedalus.
> First he gets locked out of his house, now some drunken bloke in
> Nighttown is about to slug him upside the head!" (I think I've seen
> _Ulysses_ described as a mixture of symbolist and realist, not that
> that's relevant here.)
> though he's the writer most popularly associated with the movement.
> I'd sort of resist tagging Suzanne with the label also, partly
> because of the negative connotations...
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 02:20:21 +0000
Subject: Re: Suzanne and genres (more colloquy with Wendy)
> environments now and while, yes, I agree that Suzanne remains unique. I
> think that time will tell what shape this folk music from the urban
> environment will take. What about the next generation?
> that things spawned from it and as these new genres gained
> momentum they did crossfeed one another.
>
> > Philip Glass, Steve Reich, etc?
>
> Actually, I think lit came first--but I could be wrong.
> > though he's the writer most popularly associated with the movement.
> > I'd sort of resist tagging Suzanne with the label also, partly
> > because of the negative connotations...
>
> Who says it is negative to be a minimalist. Because Raymond Carver--who
> personnaly, I believe, thought much too much of himself, didn't want to
> be a minimalist. Because maybe some people have said negative things
> about it...nein. I have a very posative feeling about minimlism--and
> this is personal taste--some people like to be told what they should be
> feeling or thinking about a certain situation.
> simplicity of his writing but was actually the interacacy of his
> writing. One has to pause at the end of a Carver story and think about
> what they are feeling. Then one must go back and read it again and
> rethink what they are feeling.
>
> This is Suzanne's music. It seems simple--with her voice--almost a
> whisper, the guitar, it is almost as if she is speaking: they lyrics:
> Something is cracking/I don't know where/Ice on the sidewalk/Brittle
> branches in the air... But afterwards, one must go back and think about
> what is cracking, is the narrator cracking, the reader, hmmm. The
> complexities of minimalism make it a viable movement in literature and
> music--it also makes minimalism--I believe--on of the most complex
> movements. I like not being told what to think. I love when the writer
> takes themselves out and leaves the reader to bring their own experiences
> to the piece.
-- me in a few minutes
From: Brian Rose <74034.643@compuserve.com>
To: Undertow
Subject: Re: Genres
Amsterdam
>absolutely everything. This is what she writes about, and I think Brian Rose is
>kind of an excuse for Tom's Diner, I think this song describes her whole work.
From: Wendy Chapman
Cc: undertow@law.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Suzanne and genres (more colloquy with Wendy)
> the urban environment, not necessarily influenced by Suzanne Vega.
> She's certainly not the first folk singer to come out of a big city
> and write about city life (Dylan was living in NYC for a good part
> of his career, wasn't he? "Subterranean Homesick Blues" sure ain't
> "What forsooth now, Lord Randolph, my son"), though she certainly
> takes it in unaccustomed directions. I'm just not sure it's a
> direction that anyone else is following -- at least enough to
> constitute a movement. That's not to say it's any less valuable; it
> may be why she's all the more necessary.
> even really folk music. Is it folk just because that's what she
> started out as and so that's what we're used to calling her, or
> because we can't think of another name for a woman playing an
> acoustic guitar (at least one not wearing a cowboy hat)? Would we
> call an album like 99.9F "folk" if anyone but Suzanne had written it?
> reason Nirvana hated being referred to as "grunge." You work all
> your life to create something, and then a critic somewhere slaps a
> label on it and declares you the flavor of the month.
> of poetry applied to fiction?
From: Darcy Van Patten
Subject: Re: Suzanne and genres
To: undertow@law.emory.edu
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 17:57:59 -0500 (EST)
> that was what made it minimalistic in the first place. A sparce detachment
> that allows the art to expand and reveal bits and pieces at a time, and
> allows you to fill in the empty spaces in whatever way you see fit.
>
> Suzanne's music is very *emotionally* minimalistic, as it allows you
> to fill in the blanks based on the circumstances described, but
> those circumstances are very vividly described in detail. So is it
> really minimalistic at all?
> the top of my lungs to her, and it's pretty hard to dance to. Although
> maybe those Soul Coughing boys will help out in that arena.
From: Wendy Chapman
To: Darcy Van Patten
Subject: Re: Suzanne and genres
> that was what made it minimalistic in the first place. A sparce detachment
> that allows the art to expand and reveal bits and pieces at a time, and
> allows you to fill in the empty spaces in whatever way you see fit.
> to fill in the blanks based on the circumstances described, but
> those circumstances are very vividly described in detail. So is it
> really minimalistic at all?
From: Darcy Van Patten
Subject: Re: Suzanne and genres
> narrative influence. I think we've seen just in the discussion the last
> few days of Bad Wisdom how minimalist it is. Suzanne, even when
> interviewed about a song, will not tell anyone what to think about it.
> Though her images are vivid--my favorite: The sun is fading fast/Upon
> the slides into the past/Upon the swings of indecision... don't not
> necessarily reflect a narrative interference. These lines could be
> interpretted a million ways depending on the mood of the listener and
> even the mood of the person writing it or singing it.
> It amazed me the different feel some of the older songs had--the
> different emotional response I had to them just because they were
> arranged a little differently--In particular, there is a stunning version
> of Luka on that tape.
Subject: Re: Suzanne and genres
>different emotional response I had to them just because they were
>arranged a little differently
From: Wendy Chapman
To: Darcy Van Patten
Subject: Re: Suzanne and genres
> the guitar?
From: Wendy Chapman
Cc: undertow@law.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Suzanne and genres
> the same vein of Suzanne's writing. He gives you plenty of detail, describing
> the actions, setting, etc but leaves it up to you to fill in the details (ie -
> what the protagonist is really upset about, what exactly is this persons
> emotional state and how does their actions lead you to this). In a way, SV
> music and RC stories are as good as some of the best mystery/who did it
> stories. That's why I was a bit disappointed in Short Cuts - some of them
> didn't jive with what I saw as the story (and not that it was really bad - just
> certain stories). I think we've seen this plenty of times on this list -
> everyone has the same starting material (Suzanne's songs) and we fill it in
> with what we want - and sometimes it doesn't agree with others, which makes for
> some interesting threads here.
To: michael Sturm
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 09:46:34 +0000
Subject: Re: vega's works
> broaden his mind after a first successful piece of art? if s/he's
> ambitious, yes. suzanne has done nothing else but tried to test
> other possible shades of folk
> fooled us,
Up to The Suzanne Vega Home Page