It’s called “music appreciation.”
And her hashtag is an album from 25 years ago. Damn.
A very good album, I’ll grant you, but I can’t see Keith Richards tagging #exileonmainstreet for general purpose stuff.
Yeah, and she did not omit from her apologia “I go to an African-American church (so cut me some slack)”. Matter of fact, the white-controlled religious right anti-gay crusade uses black clergy for P.R. tokenism. Puts them out in front of the media for show, to disguise where they’re really coming from. Pam Spaulding extensively documents that practice.
It’s been 20 years since I’ve read the liner notes, but the way I remember them is this: Much of American music has its roots in the 19th Century, when minstrel shows were popular. Rather than go back the earlier origins – the songs that slaves sung, which has been done – she explored the transitional songs between the slave songs and popular music. Minstrel shows used racial stereotypes. I recall in the liner notes that she said something about people looking at the stereotypes instead of the progression of American music.
Jump Jim Crow in particular uses the stereotypes; and, as I said, uses the word ‘jigaboo’. Someone who did not understand the point she was trying to make, or who just hears the word instead of the context in which it’s used, might conclude that she was being a racist. That is, they miss her point. They miss that Taj Mahal played on the track. What makes me uncomfortable is not the song, or that a White woman is performing in black face, as it were. What makes me uncomfortable is the thought that the context would be misconstrued. It’s like, ‘I see what you’re doing, and I understand why you’re going it; but given that that particular song has such potential for misunderstanding, is it really a good move to include it?’ I think art should challenge people, but in the context of her body of work Jump Jim Crow doesn’t quite fit in. I imagine someone who hears the song without knowing what it’s about.
I’m remembering it from the rather authoritarian last days of British colonial rule in Kenya, which would have jibed with the image of her being choked on the album cover. Then again, the punk geneology of the term would apply to this as well–rather better, actually. Thanks, Telemark.
Perhaps your niece would like Phranc.
Last I checked most of her stuff was out of print and she hadn’t recorded for years. Is her music easily downloadable? It certainly was good stuff back in the day.
Heh. I am not a ‘Gay Music fan’ (in any sense you choose to read that), but I have Folksinger. I haven’t listened to it in ages, since I don’t have a digital copy. One of these days I should get a USB turntable and make a copy. One Of The Girls got a lot of airplay on KXLU. I liked the way it sounded. So I bought the album. Noguchi was relevant at the time. To this day, I cannot hear a reference to The Washington Post without thinking of Liar, Liar:
[Something, something] The Washington Post
The paper people look up to the most
Liar, liar, pants on fire!
You can’t believe what you read.
Lifelover is a song of hope when AIDS was almost as frightening as Reagan with his finger on the trigger. Most of the rest of the songs were good too.
You don’t have to be gay to enjoy a good story. (Though in Phranc’s case, I imagine her stories are more relevant to the Gay community than they are to me.)
Her song Gary is really one of the most amazing songs I’ve ever heard. She sings to the person who killed her brother and pleads that he doesn’t get the death penalty.
Ok, so I listened to the webcast, with a lot of fast forwarding since Michelle is mostly a no show, and I think some kind of mental breakdown is the deal. I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole Falling Hard for Fundamentalism was the beginning of that.
More specifically, I believe that the involvement of a black musician of his stature is more significant than any uncomfortable feelings you may have listening to the song.
Yeah, say what you will about her perplexing adoption of bible literalism, there is no way she is a racist. It’s more apt to say that she is defiantly politically incorrect.
Agreed. It makes me sad.
Care to summarize for us? What did she say?
I’ve just been reading the Washington Post article. Basically, she didn’t pick up the phone for a while; when she did she was listening to the podcast online, causing interference; she read her statement without answering questions; she got into an argument over the 5-second delay; and finally told the host that she would see her on Twitter and hung up.
I had the exact same thought as outlierrn: this sounds like a mental breakdown happening live and in public. Very sad.
After repeated attempts of the interviewer, Nicole Sandler to call her (resulting in voicemail), she finally picked up.
Sandler started asking questions, but it was derailed a bit by Shocked having her computer on in the background, which was playing the show she was calling into, except with the 10-second delay that it takes to get through the inter webs). Sandler kept telling her to turn off the computer (so it wouldn’t interfere with the audio), but Shocked was non-responsive.
Over (what seemed to be about) the 5-minute exchange, her only utterance was what sounded like a prepared statement to the effect of “I do not hate homosexuals.” (I’m sorry – I can’ t remember the exact words and the radioornot.com site is down (overloaded by the curious?). The whole time the interviewer was trying to get her to engage, but eventually, Shocked just hung up.
A little later, she apparently called back into the show, but seemed preoccupied with the 10-second delay of the broadcast — she then just counted off the seconds of the delay before hanging up again.
Sandler — an old acquaintance of Shocked — became progressively (pardon the pun) frustrated at the non-interview she believed Shocked had agreed to the night before and filled the Shocked-free airtime with agitated rants about the events of the last few days. In my opinion, Sandler kind of lost her shit and made for a hostile environment which didn’t help the situation.
The second half is the Shocked portion. Shocked finally calls in around 1:35:00.
Her statement was:
Mental illness and religion is a dangerous combination.
It’s a little harder to buy the clarification when you hear the original audio from the San Francisco show.
Yea, she explicitly includes herself in the group of people that fear priests will be forced to perform homosexual marriages at gunpoint. It doesn’t really sync with her explanation.
I think she’s just attached herself to a religion that’s a lot more Conservative then she is, and is having trouble reconciling her views (coming from a family of liberal Catholics, I can sympathize). In the clip, you can actually hear her equivocate over whether or not to include herself in the group of people that holds anti-gay views, before stressing that she is part of that group.
(thanks for the summary B. Serum. Sounds like that interview is unlikely to be included in a listing of great moments in Celebrity Damage Control)