Musically, it's Folk. Nothing wrong with that, but they're right, it ain't classical.

folk or possibly pop. but she wrote the "songs". van dyke parks did all the real work of orchestrating the pieces for her, from what i've read. he falls much closer to the classic composer line to me.

I'm glad that this discussion is shining more light on these artists. The song writers and the orchestral collaborators are just doin their thing. . . it's pretty lame that everyone is trying to weigh in on how to classify it in a time when all the lines are blurred and everyone is a slashy (singer/songwriter/model/your mom)

Does it move people?
check
Are tickets selling?
check check

I was at the same show this counter critic guy was at and I couldnt disagree more with him. He describes an event very different than the one I attended.

Going into the show, I liked her music though was not exactly a big fan and she totally won me over. People were totally blown away by the performance and the music was nothing short of transcendent. Throughout the show people were looking around at eachother as if to say "holy shit! did you just hear that?". New York crowds are a cynical bunch and she got 3 or 4 standing Os.

If you don't believe me just do a quick blogsearch on the event and read what people have written.

Some quick context: I've never played d&d in my life and I only went to the renaissance fair once when I was nine (I didnt wanna go, my older sister dragged me). I don't like Devandra, the vast majority of "freak folk", fairport convention, "the hangman's beautiful daughter" or ozric tentacles. I'm no hippie.

In regards to the classical thing, it is a bit of a stretch... I don't necessarily think the "classical" label is thrown around just because her choice of instrument or because she plays with an orchestra (though those are of course in there somewhere) but because the way she writes her music. Take a song like Emily, 12 minutes long, with many distinct parts loosely connected with themes going away and working their way back in. This approach just feels different than your basic pop or folk song structure.

With so many people eager to hate on this lady she must be doing something right.

True, it would be difficult to label this generically far from Folk. That's clearly the most dominant aesthetic trait of Newsom's musical genealogy. I don't think anyone is suggesting that her records ought to be put in the same section in a record store as Haydn or Mozart(unless it's an "Employee Recommended" section.)

As I understand it, the point being made is that the harmonies, voice leading tendencies, and formal structures of Newsom's compositions display all the telltale signs of someone who's gone to music school and studied the conventions of the common practice period(musical traditions most prominent roughly within the time of composers Bach through Brahms[1600-1900].)

When Ross refers to "the long structures," he doesn't just mean the playtime of the tracks (which as you so adroitly pointed out, Mr. Kiley, are perhaps even excessive by popular recording standards.) He's referring to the form of the songs, with their many thematically, harmonically and functionally related sections. Even the return "to the same place" that Mr. Tracy describes is a common practice convention(that also shows up in jazz with the head and pop with the hook,) reiterating sections and themes within a song(i.e. the rondo, the ritornello, the sonata.) But is it the same place? Does it feel the same when she plays the opening bars of Cosmia as the closing bars after hearing the whole song between them? The harmonic content is identical. But do you feel the same when you hear them?

If your answer to that question is "No," that makes sense for several reasons. For one, it's material that's been heard before. Moreover, the song changes key, feel, tempo and intensity several times. Maybe most moving though is Newsom's vocal/lyrical narrative with it's near-palpable urgency. The musical transformation occurs in the journey away from and back to that point. But we do not move, the music does and we are the ones transformed.

If your answer to that question is "Yes." Hey, maybe this just aint your cup of tea.

Either way, I'm glad to hear Joanna Newsom's classically informed folk stirring up so much noise. Indeed she moves people(to read and write blogs if nothing else) and sells ticket$. And seems to accomplish this scrupulously. So I say more power to her.

Hi! It's me.

I figured since people are writing about me, I should at least make an appearance.

Thanks, first, to Brendan Kiley for linking to my review, and for bringing Alex Ross into the mix.

I actually do think that when Ross refers to Newsom’s “long structures” that he is referring to the length of the phrases and sections, especially since he separates out her “ornate harmonies.” He also reinforces the equation between classical methodology and length when he follows up with comments about Sufjan Stevens’ “long-form minimalist things.” Although I don’t entirely disagree that the aesthetics of length have a lot to do with differentiating between classical and popular music, it is more the sensibility of a music that will determine it. For instance, films scores are popular music, no matter what anyone says. So, even a long film score is still popular because of the sensibility it concurs.

What's funny (or not) is that some fans of Joanna Newsom seem to think that criticizing her at all is criticizing her totally. This is precisely why I aimed the beginning of my review at this closed-circuit of approval that her admirers construct around her work. It rings of that "you’re either with us or against us" mentality that plagues our culture. We, as American's, are tragically resistant to ambivalence. But the harder, more true, more constructive criticisms are those that don't necessarily render a verdict. Those criticisms that consider a work deeply are likely to come to some conflict at one point or another.

And still, I'm pretty sure I also wrote that Joanna Newsom is a musician of formidable skill and vision, capable of producing magic. I can’t imagine better compliments than those. And if people had checked my blog yesterday, they would have read even more thoughts on why I feel that Newsom's music is worthy of attention, even if it's critical, and not always fawning attention. And if they check back later today, they’ll find another post about her, because, as much as I wanted to dismiss her if not only to spite all the hype, I just can’t quit Joanna Newsom. Or, rather, I’ve been listening to “Ys” every day since the concert.

I will admit here that it was inaccurate of me to say that the music doesn’t take you anywhere. Upon listening to the CD, it does. It takes you in. Certain parts draw you into her world, delicately, intimately, and you want to stay there. Good thing for us, she lets you stay there, for like, ten minutes. But there was still something about the live performance that, for me, and for most of the time, wasn’t transportive. I know the fanatics (that is the source of the term “fan”) will beg to differ.

But the main thing I would like to propose is that we all try to stop reading defensively. Are our convictions that precarious that the slightest disagreement (however well-worded) can send us into a tyrannical defense of a woman who really needs no defense? Joanna Newsom's work will stand on its own, and not because of self-appointed crusaders or evangelists, but because it has inherent quality.