April 14, 2014
The Ballad of Geeshie and Elvie

hardcorefornerds:

This is a fascinating piece about two female blues musicians, attempting to trace their personal history, and in that respect it’s very timely. I’m not as interested in EMA’s The Future’s Void as cyberpunk artefact (although I did just read Gibson’s Neuromancer for the first time over the past couple of days, while B. Michael’s piece here on that topic is very good and something I’ll return to) as much as a continuation of her earlier genre- and gender-bending work, with the blues. Actually the two aren’t very separate, as I tried to suggest in my previous post - it’s just a matter of whether you’re looking backwards or forwards. For example, the article above is very particularly concerned about finding personal details of the two women, albeit with nods to a larger historical narrative - “the Blues Mafia doesn’t always come off heroically in recent — and vital — revisionist histories of the field, more of them being written by women (including two forthcoming books by Daphne Brooks [Princeton professor and author of the excellent 33 1/3rd book on Jeff Buckley’s Grace] and Amanda Petrusich)” - or more sceptically, the Casaubon-like Mack McCormick: 

"He began to intuit a theory of “clusters,” that this was how culture worked, emanating outward from vortices where craft-making and art-making suddenly rise, under a confluence of various pressures, to higher levels. Elaborating that theory would be his great work, or part of it."

As the author points out, it was his particular focus on Robert Johnson that in part undid him (in a video contribution, McCormick also talks more frankly about his experiences with bipolar illness), and McCormick himself further raises the question of how reliable any of the information on that particularly mythic figure is, but here we have a pursuit of two apparently even more obscure figures. And in the sausage-making of historical investigation, there are tentative personal contacts, with potential living relatives, as well as inquiry into historical documents. Is this so far from the world of EMA’s ‘3Jane’, about privacy, identity, celebrity in the age of mass information, which opens with the simple question “Can you believe all they say”? A single, solitary photograph turns up - a phone copy of a Polaroid - of an elderly woman. “She was already dying when it was taken”, we are told. “[T]here was no doubt that her eyes were full of profound melancholy”. I’ve seen my face/and I don’t recognise/the person that I feel inside.

That’s not to say there isn’t a genuine warmth to the tale of the family reunion at the end, the shared memories constructing an oral history of the blueswoman, after the music, in her adopted community. It’s just that it’s (with one particular exception) not really connected with the life before. Which is a point the piece wants to make, the disconnect, and references partly the why - giving up the blues and its lifestyle for church and gospel music - without really giving it much consideration. Save for a tantalising hint at the end, at the edge of human frailty of memory, it can’t penetrate back beyond what they know of what happened after; or beyond the limited vision of census and police records, recording physical existence within the legal-political sphere of America, rather than the cultural one. Of course in a general sense there presumably is - as referenced above - a history of the latter written, and being written, but in this specific case it seems to be too late for the original, personal story to emerge, as distinct from what personal details can emerge from records and knowledge after-the-fact.

What I found most interesting about the piece, therefore, were the different levels of information it presented. It is a multimedia piece, with snippets of songs linked into the text of the lyrics, and video pieces spaced throughout the article. As a starting point, there are the (musical) records: they exist, although physically rare. One of the videos is a discussion about the concept of having an isolated recording, a fragment of a performance without much or any other details concerning the artist - apparently in sharp contrast to today’s media (I’m not so sure - it only takes so many digital links to go dead, to much the same effect). The physical record is there, spinning (at 78 rpm) on a turntable, emitting its characteristic hiss. Yet, in Amanda Petrusich’s words, “all that static, all that noise, all that stuff that sort of separates us from the song itself, she just cuts through that”. Don Kent says ”whatever performances we have are certainly more important than any information we may or may not have about the artist”. The record is a thing, inviolable, superior to other forms of information - and visually fetishised accordingly (as I do myself, albeit usually in different contexts).

The act of recording, however, is also itself a distortion, something Greg Milner in Perfecting Sound Forever is very good on in relation to the blues and the collectors of American folk and the accompanying cultural politics - something which EMA is consciously a further stage in, with her Some Dark Holler project (not, it seems, fully realised to the point of release, but enough to create the amazing Robert Johnson cover and also the track ‘Moonshiner’, which melds fingerpicking blues with the growing hum of guitar drone and pushes it on into shoegaze and beyond). 

One personal detail with relevance for L.V. Thomas’s prior life that does emerge is that she was seen as odd for wearing pants, which suggested she was lesbian; and going back to the record, a gospel historian and producer “knew ‘Motherless Child Blues’ well and said he was confident that any black person listening to it in the late 1920s would have recognised her delivery as ‘butch’”. The record has a context, which can be interpreted with a broader knowledge of the period, to illuminate (or at least speculate on) sparse details from a personal life. But is it context we need more, or biography?

According to Petrusich, Geeshie Wiley “came out of the ether and went back into the ether” - a line which could equally have come from a review of The Future’s Void. That album, however, is in part about the oppression of too much knowledge (‘Neuromancer’ - “they know more of it than you do, about all the things that you do”) whereas this whole story is about not knowing enough. Yet there is already the tension within the article with the record, the recording, as knowledge and experience enough in itself, and never quite justifying - except as a quixotic research project and/or a benefit to family history - the pursuit of the person behind the music, back through all those dark and forgotten years. What does it say about the blues, in particular - that raw outpouring of emotion, or rather its transmutation into music - to try and tie it down to personal events? To tell the story of women in the blues, do we need to have their particular stories - or does history allow a right to privacy, to be remembered only in song?

That article linked at the top is a 90-minute rabbithole that is VERY much worth falling down, and while all of HCFN’s elaboration relating to EMA and her connection to prewar blues and science fiction and etc is fascinating, the real takeaway from all this to me is just how easy it is to lose history if no one bothers to write it down or do anything with it. Which just, once again, makes my mind return to the boxes of zines and records that sit around my room having nothing done with them. Will some obscure 7 inch in my collection one day be one of less than a dozen extant copies? (Are any of them that way right now?) I feel like I better start writing everything down now just in case in 50 years I’m another Mack McCormick dealing with widespread bitterness because I never did anything with the info I had/have. Of course, bipolar disorder is a mitigating factor in my life too…

Sigh. Apologies for my grandiosity. Maybe no one cares about the music I think is so important anyway, right? But I guess if nothing else, I do. I think my continuing to bring this stuff up on this blog is an example of me finding ways to berate myself for not doing more. I need to stop talking and do some work.

April 13, 2014

katherinestasaph:

Cardiknox, “Hold Me Down”

She’s touring with Betty Who, and turns out to be the answer to “what if the follow-up to ‘Somebody Loves You’ wasn’t brighter but darker?”

Am I insane for thinking this sounds like The Knife at their most accessible? What I’m trying to say is I love it.

April 13, 2014
scarygr4pes:

terrorshock:

Monday 4/14/14 at Steady Sounds
GOOD THROB uk PRIESTS dc CHRISTI rva
$7. 5pm.

Yes please

Not only did I write about this show, I’m actually going to this show. I’m even planning to buy the Good Throb LP if at all possible. They’re one of the best bands I’ve heard in the last couple years and I am SUPER stoked they are playing here.

scarygr4pes:

terrorshock:

Monday 4/14/14 at Steady Sounds

GOOD THROB uk
PRIESTS dc
CHRISTI rva

$7. 5pm.

Yes please

Not only did I write about this show, I’m actually going to this show. I’m even planning to buy the Good Throb LP if at all possible. They’re one of the best bands I’ve heard in the last couple years and I am SUPER stoked they are playing here.

April 13, 2014
‘Please Don’t Go Out Tonight’ by SpitfireI have nothing to offer but a heart that is hurting.

‘Please Don’t Go Out Tonight’ by Spitfire
I have nothing to offer but a heart that is hurting.

12:57am  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/Z-FUay1CuQzcW
  
Filed under: thisismyjam 
April 13, 2014

aintgotnoladytronblues:

omikse:

Unseen: Me & intotheswamp with arms around each other’s shoulders, on knees, doing a collective headbang/bow gesture during “THAT BREAKDOWN” whilst aintgotnoladytronblues shouts “BOOOO!” and pelts us w/ rubbish.

that would be an accurate description of my response, yes.

you’re a troublesome nerd, max, you know that

Oh whoa, this is from the Eighteen Visions album where they lost the plot. The early stuff was a bit too repetitively moshy, but Until The Ink Runs Out had some really good stuff on it and Vanity was pretty much brilliant. But Vanity's brilliance was all based on their ability to ride the line between sassy eyeliner-emo melodic parts/Every Time I Die rock-n-roll-core and full-on mosh violence. They managed to walk that line perfectly on Vanity, but that’s one of those things that can happen either because a band has found the perfect formula or because they’re in transition from one mediocre style to a completely different mediocre style. When Obsession came out, we all found out it was the latter. I highly suggest going with "Vanity" in lieu of this song, but that’s just one reporter’s opinion.

12:55am  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/Z-FUay1CuQDQc
  
Filed under: Eighteen Visions 
April 12, 2014
Too dark to see, too loud to hear.

Too dark to see, too loud to hear.

April 12, 2014

This is my crappy cam-phone-shot version of “great recent moments in the history of Rocket Raccoon.” All are from the current ongoing Guardians Of The Galaxy series; words by Brian Michael Bendis, art by Sara Pichelli (except I think the first one is by Steve McNiven). Hope this looks OK!

April 12, 2014
hashknife:

andrewtsks:

hardcorefornerds:

raptoravatar:

hashknife:

he had moves like this and yet he still killed himself what chance do the rest of us stand?

I felt this way for almost all of “Infinite Jest”.

I needed to do some refreshing on the sociology of disability, so I read through almost all of Michael Oliver’s The Politics of Disablement yesterday(there’s a updated 2012 edition of the 1990 book called The New Politics of Disablement which I also need to read, but haven’t got hold of a copy yet) and it struck me how many references there were to epilepsy, as interpreted through the conflict between the medical and social models of disability. Sure enough, Oliver’s PhD thesis was titled ‘Epilepsy, Self and Society’ and dated from… 1979.
Which is a roundabout way of saying that when this first crossed my dash, I had some uneasy thoughts about that first line. I hesitated to comment because I’m not sure of the causation - indeed if anyone is, or could be, but I’m just basing it on watching Control and reading Deborah Curtis’ powerful memoir Touching from a Distance - but either those ‘moves’ were partially symptomatic of his epilepsy, or at the very least the strain of performance exacerbated the condition, while the medication he was prescribed for epilepsy had negative side-effects which contributed to his mental ill-health. That’s not to say there weren’t other social and personal factors - indeed, it is say very much that there were - in Curtis going down the route that resulted in his death. I just have an image of the lead singer of Joy Division meeting a young(ish) disabled academic around that time, possibly with a perspective that could have led to a different outcome. 

Uneasy thoughts is right. I just keep looking at his face and thinking how terrified he looks, as if what he’s doing is not something he means to do, and the fact that it’s happening anyway is scaring him. I think Ian Curtis’s struggles with epilepsy are a big part of his story, and while I by no means want to excuse the callous treatment he dealt out to those closest to him, I also think we should be careful not to accidentally glamorize what may actually have been symptoms of a disability he was having a tough time with.
I dunno, I’m not yellin at anybody, I’m just sayin, keep it in mind.

why hello there, tumblr
i just wanna clarify that i was definitely not seriously linking his suicide to his dance moves or ‘glamorizing’ his epilepsy. i was making a dumb joke. thanks for it super serious though!
even if i did the whole ‘lamented his death with respect to his talent + potential” would i be talking about his weird spazzy (awesome) epileptic dance moves? no! i’d be talking about his songwriting. 
everything you guys said was totally correct and well thought out and well-put. but with all due respect, lighten up a bit. 

Since your blog layout is literally unreadable and I had to click reblog to even read what you’d written, I’ll go ahead and respond. (Remember when I said I wasn’t mad at anyone, I was just sayin? Now I’m mad.)
The internet is a public forum, and as it’s a strictly textual communication medium, you run double risk of being misunderstood, a) because what you say will probably reach people who don’t know you, and b) because tone is hard to read through text. If you make a “dumb joke” and people end up taking it seriously and responding to it as such, it’s not their fault for giving a shit, it’s your fault for having failed at communicating your humorous intent. Or, perhaps more aptly in this case, for making a “dumb joke” about things (i.e. disability, suicide) other people don’t see as all that humorous. In other words: don’t chastise me, you’re the one who fucked up. 
P.S. It has been pointed out to me in other places that this gif is from the movie Control. In which case, congrats to the filmmakers on casting a guy who looks exactly like Ian Curtis. My point still stands, though, as you can find performances by the actual Joy Division where Ian Curtis doesn’t seem to be entirely in control of his arms (see this TV studio performance of “Transmission,” starting at about the 2-minute mark, for an example).

hashknife:

andrewtsks:

hardcorefornerds:

raptoravatar:

hashknife:

he had moves like this and yet he still killed himself
what chance do the rest of us stand?

I felt this way for almost all of “Infinite Jest”.

I needed to do some refreshing on the sociology of disability, so I read through almost all of Michael Oliver’s The Politics of Disablement yesterday(there’s a updated 2012 edition of the 1990 book called The New Politics of Disablement which I also need to read, but haven’t got hold of a copy yet) and it struck me how many references there were to epilepsy, as interpreted through the conflict between the medical and social models of disability. Sure enough, Oliver’s PhD thesis was titled ‘Epilepsy, Self and Society’ and dated from… 1979.

Which is a roundabout way of saying that when this first crossed my dash, I had some uneasy thoughts about that first line. I hesitated to comment because I’m not sure of the causation - indeed if anyone is, or could be, but I’m just basing it on watching Control and reading Deborah Curtis’ powerful memoir Touching from a Distance - but either those ‘moves’ were partially symptomatic of his epilepsy, or at the very least the strain of performance exacerbated the condition, while the medication he was prescribed for epilepsy had negative side-effects which contributed to his mental ill-health. That’s not to say there weren’t other social and personal factors - indeed, it is say very much that there were - in Curtis going down the route that resulted in his death. I just have an image of the lead singer of Joy Division meeting a young(ish) disabled academic around that time, possibly with a perspective that could have led to a different outcome. 

Uneasy thoughts is right. I just keep looking at his face and thinking how terrified he looks, as if what he’s doing is not something he means to do, and the fact that it’s happening anyway is scaring him. I think Ian Curtis’s struggles with epilepsy are a big part of his story, and while I by no means want to excuse the callous treatment he dealt out to those closest to him, I also think we should be careful not to accidentally glamorize what may actually have been symptoms of a disability he was having a tough time with.

I dunno, I’m not yellin at anybody, I’m just sayin, keep it in mind.

why hello there, tumblr

i just wanna clarify that i was definitely not seriously linking his suicide to his dance moves or ‘glamorizing’ his epilepsy. i was making a dumb joke. thanks for it super serious though!

even if i did the whole ‘lamented his death with respect to his talent + potential” would i be talking about his weird spazzy (awesome) epileptic dance moves? no! i’d be talking about his songwriting. 

everything you guys said was totally correct and well thought out and well-put. but with all due respect, lighten up a bit. 

Since your blog layout is literally unreadable and I had to click reblog to even read what you’d written, I’ll go ahead and respond. (Remember when I said I wasn’t mad at anyone, I was just sayin? Now I’m mad.)

The internet is a public forum, and as it’s a strictly textual communication medium, you run double risk of being misunderstood, a) because what you say will probably reach people who don’t know you, and b) because tone is hard to read through text. If you make a “dumb joke” and people end up taking it seriously and responding to it as such, it’s not their fault for giving a shit, it’s your fault for having failed at communicating your humorous intent. Or, perhaps more aptly in this case, for making a “dumb joke” about things (i.e. disability, suicide) other people don’t see as all that humorous. In other words: don’t chastise me, you’re the one who fucked up. 

P.S. It has been pointed out to me in other places that this gif is from the movie Control. In which case, congrats to the filmmakers on casting a guy who looks exactly like Ian Curtis. My point still stands, though, as you can find performances by the actual Joy Division where Ian Curtis doesn’t seem to be entirely in control of his arms (see this TV studio performance of “Transmission,” starting at about the 2-minute mark, for an example).

April 12, 2014
Not even SPIN Magazine knows what the fuck the plural of “artist” is anymore. How is this knowledge being lost? What happened in the past two decades to leave most young writers unaware that pluralizing a word with “-ist” on the end DOES involve placing an “s” at the end of the word?
[For the record, I clicked through at the link, and the word is pluralized correctly in the actual title of the book they’re referencing. So not only do they not know what the plural of “artist” is, they can’t even copy a book title correctly from the book’s web page.]

Not even SPIN Magazine knows what the fuck the plural of “artist” is anymore. How is this knowledge being lost? What happened in the past two decades to leave most young writers unaware that pluralizing a word with “-ist” on the end DOES involve placing an “s” at the end of the word?

[For the record, I clicked through at the link, and the word is pluralized correctly in the actual title of the book they’re referencing. So not only do they not know what the plural of “artist” is, they can’t even copy a book title correctly from the book’s web page.]

April 12, 2014
hardcorefornerds:

raptoravatar:

hashknife:

he had moves like this and yet he still killed himself what chance do the rest of us stand?

I felt this way for almost all of “Infinite Jest”.

I needed to do some refreshing on the sociology of disability, so I read through almost all of Michael Oliver’s The Politics of Disablement yesterday(there’s a updated 2012 edition of the 1990 book called The New Politics of Disablement which I also need to read, but haven’t got hold of a copy yet) and it struck me how many references there were to epilepsy, as interpreted through the conflict between the medical and social models of disability. Sure enough, Oliver’s PhD thesis was titled ‘Epilepsy, Self and Society’ and dated from… 1979.
Which is a roundabout way of saying that when this first crossed my dash, I had some uneasy thoughts about that first line. I hesitated to comment because I’m not sure of the causation - indeed if anyone is, or could be, but I’m just basing it on watching Control and reading Deborah Curtis’ powerful memoir Touching from a Distance - but either those ‘moves’ were partially symptomatic of his epilepsy, or at the very least the strain of performance exacerbated the condition, while the medication he was prescribed for epilepsy had negative side-effects which contributed to his mental ill-health. That’s not to say there weren’t other social and personal factors - indeed, it is say very much that there were - in Curtis going down the route that resulted in his death. I just have an image of the lead singer of Joy Division meeting a young(ish) disabled academic around that time, possibly with a perspective that could have led to a different outcome. 

Uneasy thoughts is right. I just keep looking at his face and thinking how terrified he looks, as if what he’s doing is not something he means to do, and the fact that it’s happening anyway is scaring him. I think Ian Curtis’s struggles with epilepsy are a big part of his story, and while I by no means want to excuse the callous treatment he dealt out to those closest to him, I also think we should be careful not to accidentally glamorize what may actually have been symptoms of a disability he was having a tough time with.
I dunno, I’m not yellin at anybody, I’m just sayin, keep it in mind.

hardcorefornerds:

raptoravatar:

hashknife:

he had moves like this and yet he still killed himself
what chance do the rest of us stand?

I felt this way for almost all of “Infinite Jest”.

I needed to do some refreshing on the sociology of disability, so I read through almost all of Michael Oliver’s The Politics of Disablement yesterday(there’s a updated 2012 edition of the 1990 book called The New Politics of Disablement which I also need to read, but haven’t got hold of a copy yet) and it struck me how many references there were to epilepsy, as interpreted through the conflict between the medical and social models of disability. Sure enough, Oliver’s PhD thesis was titled ‘Epilepsy, Self and Society’ and dated from… 1979.

Which is a roundabout way of saying that when this first crossed my dash, I had some uneasy thoughts about that first line. I hesitated to comment because I’m not sure of the causation - indeed if anyone is, or could be, but I’m just basing it on watching Control and reading Deborah Curtis’ powerful memoir Touching from a Distance - but either those ‘moves’ were partially symptomatic of his epilepsy, or at the very least the strain of performance exacerbated the condition, while the medication he was prescribed for epilepsy had negative side-effects which contributed to his mental ill-health. That’s not to say there weren’t other social and personal factors - indeed, it is say very much that there were - in Curtis going down the route that resulted in his death. I just have an image of the lead singer of Joy Division meeting a young(ish) disabled academic around that time, possibly with a perspective that could have led to a different outcome. 

Uneasy thoughts is right. I just keep looking at his face and thinking how terrified he looks, as if what he’s doing is not something he means to do, and the fact that it’s happening anyway is scaring him. I think Ian Curtis’s struggles with epilepsy are a big part of his story, and while I by no means want to excuse the callous treatment he dealt out to those closest to him, I also think we should be careful not to accidentally glamorize what may actually have been symptoms of a disability he was having a tough time with.

I dunno, I’m not yellin at anybody, I’m just sayin, keep it in mind.