I am gonna go against the tide on this one, because I really like "Yoga". It is one song on a compilation EP, not part of Janelle's concept albums, so I think she felt freer to do a fun, dance track.

Yes, the music on the Yoga is more mainstream than her other work, but the lyrics fit with her message, IMO. "I'm too much a rebel, never do what I'm supposed ta ..... You cannot police me, so get off my areola" (I love that last line by the way).

For people who are worried that Janelle is dressing sexier because of commercial pressure, if you listen to lyrics from her older albums, you will see she has always had a freakier side. Listen to "Wondaland" again: "Take me back to Wondaland; I think I left my underpants." Hello?!

For the person who said "black people don't do yoga", I hope you were joking. I guess you didn't know Janelle's been doing yoga for about a year and has an African American yoga instructor!

I get that people admire Janelle's originality/vision and feel protective of her, but this is one single. As Janelle responded to someone on Reddit recently, "Don't box me in, bro "

purplethunder3121 said:

What happened to the Janelle who gave us Archandroid?!

Ya I'm with you....Janelle doesnt need ot be wasting her time like this.

Video is out. What you guys think?

[Edited 4/13/15 6:10am]

[Edited 4/13/15 6:10am]

I'm still surprised that she lent her vocals to this. It's beneath her.

Identity said:

I'm still surprised that she lent her vocals to this. It's beneath her.

It's not even like it grows on you. Just fifty shades of meh.

She looks beautiful in the video but I don't like the song and the video is not good either. Why is she trying to be something that she is not? I can not believe she sung on this shitty song.

link broken, will repost or delete later.

[Edited 4/14/15 4:30am]

BobGeorge909 said:

I don't know about what everyone's said above... I love Janelle and expectations r high....but sometimes girls just wanna have fun...yeah? I unno... But what I really wanna say is this. I was curios before, but now I REALLY wanna see what this areola looks like. And girl...how am I supposed to get off of it if I can't even see it. also, where do u yoga at?

Its funny that no YOGA is being done in the video

This song, video as well as Ms. Monae are getting really bad reviews on youtube.

I will never understand why she did this. I loveee her buts its the truth!!! It's not the video that is the problem because I don't think there is anything wrong with using sexuality tastefully which I actually think she does in the video. However, the song is problematic and generic.

Again, I understand that this is a joint venture but why attach yourself to something that goes against everything you represent?

If those other associate artists sounds anything like this mess than she minus well scratch the whole project, people are not happy. She has alienated some of her hard core fans because of this.

Most of you who have complained about the artistic merits of this song/video are disappointed
because you believe that Monae equals some type of "pure" or "serious" artist who would never
sell sex or release art that is closely aligned to what occurs generically; and that this song/video
dispels those very qualities you appreciated in her.

But guess what?

People change and artists change. Yesterday, I liked whole milk. In fact, the week before, I liked
whole milk too. But this week, I wanna switch it up and try vanilla almond milk. Essentially, what
you complainers are saying is that I should never, ever try vanilla almond milk because you like
whole milk too and that is one of the reasons why you enjoyed my company; and if I did try and
like vanilla almond milk, then I've betrayed my principles and dashed your hopes about who I am
as a person against the rocks. Fans are so silly: "I have a conception of who you are. No! You
don't get to tell me who you are! You must remain loyal to the conception I have of you when I
first encountered you, or else!"

To rail against a woman for selling sex is sexist for if a woman wants to sell sex, it's certainly her
perogative. I don't like Janelle Monae but I suspect that if she is going to start selling sex, she'll
do it creatively, imaginatively, and constructively. In fact, we have to be able to distinguish
between selling sex and being sensual, the latter being what is occurring in this song more than
the former. Furthermore, I like when artists make the attempt to alienate their fan base. This
means that the fan base is not driving the artistic inspiration - the artist is. I'm not interested in
what fans think; they are the herd. I'm interested in what the artist thinks. If you Janelle Monae
fans are really vested in her work as an artist, see where this goes, or, allow her the freedom to
experiment, which is what an artist is wont to do, if you ask me.

[Edited 4/20/15 5:00am]

duccichucka said:

This thread is a perfect illustration of one of the reasons why I didn't pursue a recording arts
career more seriously: fans are big fucking insatiable babies.

Most of you who have complained about the artistic merits of this song/video are disappointed
because you believe that Monae equals some type of "pure" or "serious" artist who would never
sell sex or release art that is closely aligned to what occurs generically; and that this song/video
dispels those very qualities you appreciated in her.

But guess what?

People change and artists change. Yesterday, I liked whole milk. In fact, the week before, I liked
whole milk too. But this week, I wanna switch it up and try vanilla almond milk. Essentially, what
you complainers are saying is that I should never, ever try vanilla almond milk because you like
whole milk too and that is one of the reasons why you enjoyed my company; and if I did try and
like vanilla almond milk, then I've betrayed my principles and dashed your hopes about who I am
as a person against the rocks. Fans are so silly: "I have a conception of who you are. No! You
don't get to tell me who you are! You must remain loyal to the conception I have of you when I
first encountered you, or else!"

To rail against a woman for selling sex is sexist for if a woman wants to sell sex, it's certainly her
perogative. I don't like Janelle Monae but I suspect that if she is going to start selling sex, she'll
do it creatively, imaginatively, and constructively. In fact, we have to be able to distinguish
between selling sex and being sensual, the latter being what is occurring in this song more than
the former. Furthermore, I like when artists make the attempt to alienate their fan base. This
means that the fan base is not driving the artistic inspiration - the artist is. I'm not interested in
what fans think; they are the herd. I'm interested in what the artist thinks. If you Janelle Monae
fans are really vested in her work as an artist, see where this goes, or, allow her the freedom to
experiment, which is what an artist is wont to do, if you ask me.

Your public huffing outbursts are becoming increasingly tiresome, Ducci, not least because of a tendency to wade in scowling and wagging your forefinger before you've taken time to get anything more than a clumsy apprehension of what's actually going on. (As happened just the other day, when, having wolfed down the bait on a blatant troll thread, you mounted your soapbox and began sermonising.) Here, you're effortfully flapping at a straw man. No-one on the entire thread has expressed a problem with her taking on a more 'sexy' image. I've explicitly rebutted the idea that there's any problem with that in one of my replies, and, from what I can see, mjcarousal has done the same. So, your perennial urge to play the preacher to the dunderheaded masses comes off as somewhat misplaced. Not to mention ironic.

Same with this daft and wafer-thin notion that listeners angrily oppose an artist 'changing'. It's really not quite so hard to appreciate an artist changing up his/her game as you suggest. In fact, the most radio-friendly pop stars change their style as often as their A&R man tells them to, and tweenagers happily go with the flow. So, you flatter yourself by imagining you're in some enlightened coterie that can 'deal with' the constant change that is merely a ubiquitous fact of the pop market.

Personally, I'd be happy if Janelle came with a song accompanied by a dozen ukuleles and a tuba if it sounded inspired. I think the 'disappointment' that's being expressed is more that it's a) a duff song; and b) something that sounds a lot like the chewed-over cud of a whole 'herd' of other pop singers (Beyoncé, Rihanna, etc), that perhaps shows her moving from doing something a little more distinctive. Rather than gaily following her artistic muse, as per your wide-eyed imagining of it, it sounds more like the product of a commercially-disappointing act being leant on by those dealing with the numbers - or just an uninspired shot at scoring a radio hit.

No harm done if anyone likes or dislikes it, as far as I'm concerned. But you can spare us the half-baked lectures.

[Edited 4/19/15 7:44am]

deebee said:

Your public huffing outbursts are becoming increasingly tiresome, Ducci, not least because of a tendency to wade in scowling and wagging your forefinger before you've taken time to get anything more than a clumsy apprehension of what's actually going on. (As happened just the other day, when, having wolfed down the bait on a blatant troll thread, you mounted your soapbox and began sermonising.) Here, you're effortfully flapping at a straw man. No-one on the entire thread has expressed a problem with her taking on a more 'sexy' image. I've explicitly rebutted the idea that there's any problem with that in one of my replies, and, from what I can see, mjcarousal has done the same. So, your perennial urge to play the preacher to the dunderheaded masses comes off as somewhat misplaced. Not to mention ironic.

Same with this daft and wafer-thin notion that listeners angrily oppose an artist 'changing'. It's really not quite so hard to appreciate an artist changing up his/her game as you suggest. In fact, the most radio-friendly pop stars change their style as often as their A&R man tells them to, and tweenagers happily go with the flow. So, you flatter yourself by imagining you're in some enlightened coterie that can 'deal with' the constant change that is merely a ubiquitous fact of the pop market.

Personally, I'd be happy if Janelle came with a song accompanied by a dozen ukuleles and a tuba if it sounded inspired. I think the 'disappointment' that's being expressed is more that it's a) a duff song; and b) something that sounds a lot like the chewed-over cud of a whole 'herd' of other pop singers (Beyoncé, Rihanna, etc), that perhaps shows her moving from doing something a little more distinctive. Rather than gaily following her artistic muse, as per your wide-eyed imagining of it, it sounds more like the product of a commercially-disappointing act being leant on by those dealing with the numbers - or just an uninspired shot at scoring a radio hit.

No harm done if anyone likes or dislikes it, as far as I'm concerned. But you can spare us the half-baked lectures.

[Edited 4/19/15 7:44am]

I don't have a clumsy apprehension of what's going on in this thread. I'm specifically responding
to two sentiments I've come across while reading it. One is about her sexuality. The other is
about the clear disdain for her attempt at going mainstream with a more commercial sound. For
example, these posts were made about her sexuality:

"I called this a while back in a thread about Annie Lennox criticizing Beyonce. Some people were
claiming Janelle is a true artist who would never use sex to self herself. I said wait and see. All
these artists will eventually sex up their images or try to fit into the current sound."

"It always seems like her carnality is part of her performance, and maybe even that there's
something at stake for her in that."

"I just hope she doesn't shake it all the way down to the ground. It would be such a shame
to see a great and inspirational artist go in that direction when she doesn't have too."

And like you did, I commented on Monae's explicit sexuality/sensuality in "Yoga" by suggesting
that a female who decides to use her sexuality or in this case, sensuality, to sell records is her
pregoative; and that Janelle Monae appears to be the type of female who would creatively,
imaginatively, and constructively use her sensuality to open up a discussion about a female using
her "carnality" as you artfully put it, to "sell" something. And while no on has explicitly con-
demned her for being sexual/sensual in "Yoga," it certainly is implicit in this thread, given the
many posts that bemoan her diverging from how she presented her self/art originally. So, you're
wrong: people have expressed a problem with this new Janelle Monae image and I've created no
strawman argument. Just because you didn't express an issue with Monae flaunting her carnality
doesn't mean that others didn't either. And if I'm not mistaken, MJCarousal is the author of the

third statement about hoping Monae doesn't "shake it all the way down to the ground," which is
implicitly suggesting that if Monae does "shake it all the way down," in other words, become
even more suggestive in flaunting her sexuality/sensuality, then she is to be criticized.

Then you claim that I've "daftly" notioned that listeners in this thread are upset with the direction
of Monae's new sound with "Yoga." But the following statements have been made in this thread
concerning this particular artist changing an established sound:

"What happened to the Janelle who gave us Archandroid?!"

"...I understand that this is a joint venture but why attach yourself to something that goes
against everything you represent?"

"I am praying the Electric Lady stays Electric."

"She is sooo much better than this. If she tries to emulate the current pop-tarts she will not
succeed."

So, what's "daft" about the view I possess that bristles against the evident fandom's childish
insistence in this thread that its archetypes, or musical heroes in this matter, do not change?
You see here that people are questioning her artistry; people are wondering why she is
denying her true self; and people are hoping that she stays the same. So, where you're trying
to be a colossal dick by sarcastically pointing out that I'm flattering myself because I belong to a
special group of music listeners who doesn't quake with anger or frustration because my favorite
artists go from the hinterlands of music, which is where I prefer them to remain, to the main-
tream, which is where I do not wish them to be, is ironically true! I am a part of a special group
of people who can handle things that I like, depend upon, and enjoy changing their nature a bit.
The group's name is called fucking adulthood! Wanna join? Because judging from some of the
posts in this thread, this is exactly what is not happening. People are upset that's she's
appeared to be performing a type of music that is beneath her. Said one of your co-
commiserators:

"I'm still surprised that she lent her vocals to this. It's beneath her."

I mean, really guys?! Cain't a chick live? Why does she have to be who you want her to be? If
Janelle Monae wants to do pornos and create Beyonce albums to get her rocks off artistically or
to make a living, it's none of my fucking business and I wouldn't demand that she remain
tethered to an idealized version. That's pretty fucking ridiculous and childish.

So, I commented on her new image which appears to be one that is freely expressing
her sexuality/sensuality. And I commented on the obvious scolding she's received in this
thread for venturing closer to commercialization than her previous efforts, so, I dunno
what your problem is other than my original post hit a little too close to home for you as
you also appear to be one of her fans who is just a tad bit too vociferous in bemoaning
her new image/sound as if it clashes with your perceived notion of who Janelle Monae has
to be; or, as if who Janelle Monae presented herself as in the past must remain steadfastly
tied to the future. But this is how children think. And this is how fans think.

deebee said:

Personally, I'd be happy if Janelle came with a song accompanied by a dozen ukuleles and a tuba if it sounded inspired. I think the 'disappointment' that's being expressed is more that it's a) a duff song; and b) something that sounds a lot like the chewed-over cud of a whole 'herd' of other pop singers (Beyoncé, Rihanna, etc), that perhaps shows her moving from doing something a little more distinctive. Rather than gaily following her artistic muse, as per your wide-eyed imagining of it, it sounds more like the product of a commercially-disappointing act being leant on by those dealing with the numbers - or just an uninspired shot at scoring a radio hit.

Ah, so it's merely a sense of "disappointment" that's being expressed in this thread? But that
doesn't jibe well with what's been posted.

But anyways, who the hell are you to decipher what her intentions are artistically? Maybe this
new song is Janelle Monae dutifully and faithfully following after her muse. How do you know
otherwise? It seems to me that you and the other detractors are making an error in judgment

here: the commercial-ness of a song does not automatically speak to its merits as an object of
art. "Yoga" could be the result of Monae desiring to score a radio hit (there's nothing wrong
with this intention) and produce a viable piece of art through means of diligence, hard work, and
talent utilizing conventions she doesn't normally. But because the song is more accessible and
commercial than her other work, you've instantly created a binary context that's unnecessary:
("it sounds more like the product of a commercially-disappointing act being leant on by those
dealing with the numbers - or just an uninspired shot at scoring a radio hit.") and arbitrarily
elected to not entertain the idea that she is actually "gaily following her artistic muse."

duccichucka said:

I don't have a clumsy apprehension of what's going on in this thread. I'm specifically responding
to two sentiments I've come across while reading it. One is about her sexuality. The other is
about the clear disdain for her attempt at going mainstream with a more commercial sound. For
example, these posts were made about her sexuality:

"I called this a while back in a thread about Annie Lennox criticizing Beyonce. Some people were
claiming Janelle is a true artist who would never use sex to self herself. I said wait and see. All
these artists will eventually sex up their images or try to fit into the current sound."

.

That's a reply from someone dismissing precisely the kinds of objections you're wagging your finger at. It's certainly not someone "rail[ing] against a woman for selling sex." Rather, lrn36 is saying that that's the way it goes and will always go. So, no, that one doesn't fit the bill.

"It always seems like her carnality is part of her performance, and maybe even that there's
something at stake for her in that."

That's me saying it's nothing new or remarkable for her to put sexuality into her performance in some form or other, such that's a mistake to say that's the objection being registered. So, no, that one doesn't fit the bill, either.

"I just hope she doesn't shake it all the way down to the ground. It would be such a shame
to see a great and inspirational artist go in that direction when she doesn't have too."

I guess you missed the 'lol' in that one - and poster's other response saying there was nothing wrong with her outfit (and, thus, nothing wrong with her presenting herself more sexually). Again, hardly "railing."

[...]

Then you claim that I've "daftly" notioned that listeners in this thread are upset with the direction
of Monae's new sound with "Yoga." But the following statements have been made in this thread
concerning this particular artist changing an established sound:

"What happened to the Janelle who gave us Archandroid?!"

"...I understand that this is a joint venture but why attach yourself to something that goes
against everything you represent?"

"I am praying the Electric Lady stays Electric."

"She is sooo much better than this. If she tries to emulate the current pop-tarts she will not
succeed."

But your argument was that that was a response to mere 'change'. But what I said is it's a response to a certain kind of change: namely, going for a sound that's far more generic and non-distinct. It's that that people have objected to, just not what you started sermonising against.

deebee said:

duccichucka said:

I don't have a clumsy apprehension of what's going on in this thread. I'm specifically responding
to two sentiments I've come across while reading it. One is about her sexuality. The other is
about the clear disdain for her attempt at going mainstream with a more commercial sound. For
example, these posts were made about her sexuality:

"I called this a while back in a thread about Annie Lennox criticizing Beyonce. Some people were
claiming Janelle is a true artist who would never use sex to self herself. I said wait and see. All
these artists will eventually sex up their images or try to fit into the current sound."

.

That's a reply from someone dismissing precisely the kinds of objections you're wagging your finger at. It's certainly not someone "rail[ing] against a woman for selling sex." Rather, lrn36 is saying that that's the way it goes and will always go. So, no, that one doesn't fit the bill.

"It always seems like her carnality is part of her performance, and maybe even that there's
something at stake for her in that."

That's me saying it's nothing new or remarkable for her to put sexuality into her performance in some form or other, such that's a mistake to say that's the objection being registered. So, no, that one doesn't fit the bill, either.

"I just hope she doesn't shake it all the way down to the ground. It would be such a shame
to see a great and inspirational artist go in that direction when she doesn't have too."

I guess you missed the 'lol' in that one - and poster's other response saying there was nothing wrong with her outfit (and, thus, nothing wrong with her presenting herself more sexually). Again, hardly "railing."

[...]

Then you claim that I've "daftly" notioned that listeners in this thread are upset with the direction
of Monae's new sound with "Yoga." But the following statements have been made in this thread
concerning this particular artist changing an established sound:

"What happened to the Janelle who gave us Archandroid?!"

"...I understand that this is a joint venture but why attach yourself to something that goes
against everything you represent?"

"I am praying the Electric Lady stays Electric."

"She is sooo much better than this. If she tries to emulate the current pop-tarts she will not
succeed."

But your argument was that that was a response to mere 'change'. But what I said is it's a response to a certain kind of change: namely, going for a sound that's far more generic and non-distinct. It's that that people have objected to, just not what you started sermonising against.

First of all, I never said people were railing against Monae's image in "Yoga" in this thread.
I was just voicing that to rail against her new image is sexist. Second of all, the three quotes
I posted where not posted as examples of people criticizing her for being (too) sexual/sensual.
I said: "...These posts were made about her sexuality:" because you accused me of not being able
to deftly apprehend the thread's content. Where others made a remark about her image and
its ties to her sexuality/sensuality, so did I. LRN36's post makes mention of "selling sex" and I
commented on it. You made a post about her "carnality" and MJCarousal did too, so I justifiably
opined on the matter as well. By the way, her "lol" doesn't countervail the sentiment behind her
comment: she is implicitly stating that if Janelle Monae were to become more sexually/sensually
suggestive, then she would be worthy of castigation.

Finally, a poster said, again:

"I am praying the Electric Lady stays Electric."

And I "sermonized" against this mentality; I don't care if you're upset with Monae's change being
from esoteric/underground/inaccessible to common/commercial/accessible, it still applies. For
that's like saying "I hope Artist A never evolves or develops new interests, tastes, ideas, or
concepts." It's like saying "I hope Bob Dylan never goes electric." People did say that! People
threw a fit when Dylan went electric. But only a child, spoiled, bratty, and slavishly devoted to
archetypes would utter such things. And that's what fans are: children who are spoiled, bratty,
and demanding of their preferred archetypes at resisting mutability. I'm even guilty of it some-
times and have to check myself!

That's all I'm doing in this thread: I'm trying to check people and get them to relax and let this
chick discover and express her artistry how she sees fit, even if you don't like it.

duccichucka said:

deebee said:

Personally, I'd be happy if Janelle came with a song accompanied by a dozen ukuleles and a tuba if it sounded inspired. I think the 'disappointment' that's being expressed is more that it's a) a duff song; and b) something that sounds a lot like the chewed-over cud of a whole 'herd' of other pop singers (Beyoncé, Rihanna, etc), that perhaps shows her moving from doing something a little more distinctive. Rather than gaily following her artistic muse, as per your wide-eyed imagining of it, it sounds more like the product of a commercially-disappointing act being leant on by those dealing with the numbers - or just an uninspired shot at scoring a radio hit.

Ah, so it's merely a sense of "disappointment" that's being expressed in this thread? But that
doesn't jibe well with what's been posted.

But anyways, who the hell are you to decipher what her intentions are artistically? Maybe this
new song is Janelle Monae dutifully and faithfully following after her muse. How do you know
otherwise? It seems to me that you and the other detractors are making an error in judgment

here: the commercial-ness of a song does not automatically speak to its merits as an object of
art. "Yoga" could be the result of Monae desiring to score a radio hit (there's nothing wrong
with this intention) and produce a viable piece of art through means of diligence, hard work, and
talent utilizing conventions she doesn't normally. But because the song is more accessible and
commercial than her other work, you've instantly created a binary context that's unnecessary:
("it sounds more like the product of a commercially-disappointing act being leant on by those
dealing with the numbers - or just an uninspired shot at scoring a radio hit.") and arbitrarily
elected to not entertain the idea that she is actually "gaily following her artistic muse."

Oh, Ducci, I don't know what kind of validation you're seeking with all your "binary contexts", "archetypes" and "hinterlands", or all the melodrama. Or why you want to come on thread after thread railing at the unenlightened plebs you've constructed in your imagination. I hope you find whatever it is you're looking for - and maybe a nicer way to gain it. It doesn't matter to me much either way whether people like a certain song or not, or whether other people's speculations about the way it came about match my own. It's interesting to toss back and forth, but there's nothing too important at stake; we're all just expressing opinions about music and the music scene. It's the preaching-at-the-craven-masses bit I can't be arsed with, particularly when I happen to find myself on one of the pews.

deebee said:

Oh, Ducci, I don't know what kind of validation you're seeking with all your "binary contexts", "archetypes" and "hinterlands", or all the melodrama. Or why you want to come on thread after thread railing at the unenlightened plebs you've constructed in your imagination. I hope you find whatever it is you're looking for - and maybe a nicer way to gain it. It doesn't matter to me much either way whether people like a certain song or not, or whether other people's speculations about the way it came about match my own. It's interesting to toss back and forth, but there's nothing too important at stake; we're all just expressing opinions about music and the music scene. It's the preaching-at-the-craven-masses bit I can't be arsed with, particularly when I happen to find myself on one of the pews.

Heheheheh!

You can "pooh-pooh" me all you want. But the truth of the matter is that you did create a silly
binary context: you framed "Yoga" as being either pandering to a record label or a lustful desire
to score a radio hit. Neither of these have to be the case; and neither of these have you shown
to be the case. Even if I accept your binary context, it still doesn't mean that "Yoga" is a bad
song or that it's poorly written either!

[Edited 4/19/15 11:54am]

I don't like the track -- and, yeah, it's in part because I've come to expect something... uh... different from Janelle. She's mentioned recently that after having established a certain artistic integrity and intention, she feels a bit of latitude now to venture into areas perhaps unexpected of her. Perhaps this means a more conventionally sexy presentation; perhaps this means a more obviously commerical sound. I'm personally not thrilled at either notion, but we'll just have to wait and see.

Meanwhile, Janelle's involvement in this particular release gives me the distinct feel of a refined mother who is willing to dirty up a bit in order to run a three-legged race with her kid at the Mommy-Son Picnic. Sure -- she's capable of "better," but on some level I actually respect that she's willing to condescend a bit, appealing to a Top 40 R&B aesthetic to turn heads for her protege. I trust this is temporary -- and it's not that ghastly. In fact, having heard what she and Jidenna have to say about Wonderland's upcoming work, I think they might lead us into somewhere well worth tolerating this middling introduction.

[Edited 4/20/15 12:14pm]

Lammastide said:

She's mentioned recently that after having established a certain artistic integrity and intention, she feels a bit of latitude now to venture into areas perhaps unexpected of her. Perhaps this means a more conventionally sexy presentation; perhaps this means a more obviously commerical sound. I'm personally not thrilled at either notion, but we'll just have to wait and see.

Meanwhile, Janelle's involvement in this particular release gives me the distinct feel of a refined mother who is willing to dirty up a bit in order to run a three-legged race with her kid at the Mommy-Son Picnic. Sure -- she's capable of "better," but on some level I actually respect that she's willing to condescend a bit, appealing to a Top 40 R&B aesthetic to turn heads for her protege. I trust this is temporary -- and it's not that ghastly. In fact, having heard what she and Jidenna have to say about Wonderland's upcoming work, I think they might lead us into somewhere well worth tolerating this middling introduction.

[Edited 4/20/15 12:14pm]

Why?

Lamma, what is it about some artists that we allow for their commercialization (Prince, MJ,
Madonna, David Bowie, Paul McCartney, Stevie Wonder, etc.) but demand that other
artists, like Monae, shall remain tethered to some ideal that they must remain unassociated
with the larger marketplace's wants and desires?

What do you mean that she's capable of "better"? Why is this song, which is overtly
commerical, not as good as her other work which is not as commercial? For example, I've
listened to her some of her songs and "Yoga" is not any better than or worser than the
music she's released in the past. It's just that "Yoga" has a style that is heavily indebted to
the radio. Compositionally, she's not a great or interesting songwriter. But how she's
arranged her music in the past was definitely not an attempt to be drastically commercial.
But folks in this thread, you included, appear to be upset with her for having a more
commercial sound without explaining why having a more commercial sound automatically
means that the music can be "better." Like, if Kate Bush decided to go all Lady Gaga on us,
this board would erupt in shouts of blasphemy and sacrilege. But there wouldn't be any
discussion about the artistic merits of Kate Bush's supposed commercial art; instead, the
uproar would center on the foray into commerciality. So never would a discussion on the
art itself take place without first dismissing the art for now being commercial. Don't you see
how silly this is?

Ugh.....fans....so fickle and so arbitrary. I hate all of you.

I just want to add that I don't like the track either. But not for it being too commercial for
Janelle Monae, but because the melody is largely derivative, the content of the song is
boring, I don't like EDM/hip-hop production values, and that dude's verse is forgettable.

Commercial art does not mean that it has to be "bad." For example, compositionally, Taylor
Swift's "Blank Space" is a finely written pop tune, imo. It would be silly to just utterly dismiss
"Blank Space" because of its overt attempt to reach hoi polloi.

duccichucka said:

Lammastide said:

She's mentioned recently that after having established a certain artistic integrity and intention, she feels a bit of latitude now to venture into areas perhaps unexpected of her. Perhaps this means a more conventionally sexy presentation; perhaps this means a more obviously commerical sound. I'm personally not thrilled at either notion, but we'll just have to wait and see.

Meanwhile, Janelle's involvement in this particular release gives me the distinct feel of a refined mother who is willing to dirty up a bit in order to run a three-legged race with her kid at the Mommy-Son Picnic. Sure -- she's capable of "better," but on some level I actually respect that she's willing to condescend a bit, appealing to a Top 40 R&B aesthetic to turn heads for her protege. I trust this is temporary -- and it's not that ghastly. In fact, having heard what she and Jidenna have to say about Wonderland's upcoming work, I think they might lead us into somewhere well worth tolerating this middling introduction.

[Edited 4/20/15 12:14pm]

Why?

Lamma, what is it about some artists that we allow for their commercialization (Prince, MJ,
Madonna, David Bowie, Paul McCartney, Stevie Wonder, etc.) but demand that other
artists, like Monae, shall remain tethered to some ideal that they must remain unassociated
with the larger marketplace's wants and desires?

What do you mean that she's capable of "better"? Why is this song, which is overtly
commerical, not as good as her other work which is not as commercial? For example, I've
listened to her some of her songs and "Yoga" is not any better than or worser than the
music she's released in the past. It's just that "Yoga" has a style that is heavily indebted to
the radio. Compositionally, she's not a great or interesting songwriter. But how she's
arranged her music in the past was definitely not an attempt to be drastically commercial.
But folks in this thread, you included, appear to be upset with her for having a more
commercial sound without explaining why having a more commercial sound automatically
means that the music can be "better." Like, if Kate Bush decided to go all Lady Gaga on us,
this board would erupt in shouts of blasphemy and sacrilege. But there wouldn't be any
discussion about the artistic merits of Kate Bush's supposed commercial art; instead, the
uproar would center on the foray into commerciality. So never would a discussion on the
art itself take place without first dismissing the art for now being commercial. Don't you see
how silly this is?

Ugh.....fans....so fickle and so arbitrary. I hate all of you.

I can best reply to this post by replying to your next post, I think...

duccichucka said:

I just want to add that I don't like the track either. But not for it being too commercial for
Janelle Monae, but because the melody is largely derivative, the content of the song is
boring, I don't like EDM/hip-hop production values, and that dude's verse is forgettable.

And there you have it.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't have a problem with the phenomenon of commercialization. I rather think a certain misanthropy underlies an automatic hatred of all things popular. My disdain comes from a recognition the process of commercialization -- of commoditization -- all too often facilitates the very sort of derivative, boring, poorly produced, and forgettable kitsch that we're discussing here. And I don't see that changing.

Now, is less commercial work necessarily better? Of course not. (I'll confess here that I've never been terribly impressed on a visceral level by any of Janelle's stuff. In that respect, I don't know if I could even be called "a fan." ) But I absolutely have found curveballs like the ones for which Janelle has been known to be more intellectually stimulating and aesthetically expansive at a time when R&B needs that sort of challenge.

[Edited 4/20/15 19:15pm]

Lammastide said:

duccichucka said:

I just want to add that I don't like the track either. But not for it being too commercial for
Janelle Monae, but because the melody is largely derivative, the content of the song is
boring, I don't like EDM/hip-hop production values, and that dude's verse is forgettable.

And there you have it.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't have a problem with the phenomenon of commercialization. I rather think a certain misanthropy underlies an automatic hatred of all things popular. My disdain comes from a recognition the process of commercialization -- of commoditization -- all too often facilitates the very sort of derivative, boring, poorly produced, and forgettable kitsch that we're discussing here. And I don't see that changing.

Now, is less commercial work necessarily better? Of course not. (I'll confess here that I've never been terribly impressed on a visceral level by any of Janelle's stuff. In that respect, I don't know if I could even be called "a fan." ) But I absolutely have found curveballs like the ones for which Janelle has been known to be more intellectually stimulating and aesthetically expansive at a time when R&B needs that sort of challenge.

[Edited 4/20/15 19:15pm]

Harumph...

I was making a post at a Youtube video featuring a classical composer whereby a fan claimed
that the piece was "too accessible." One responded "But Schumann needed to eat too." In
other words, hate on an artist because they are producing crap. But realize that sometimes,
artistic inspiration can have your stomach grumbling and growling at night. Even Beethoven
produced derivative, boring, poorly written, and forgettable kitsch once in awhile so that he could
live. Artists live mostly by the patronizing of the public. You'd be doing yourself a solid to be
mindful of this, right?

Unless you're lucky like Wagner, or Tchaikovsky, and have a gracious benefactor with deep
pockets, you gotta hustle and bustle and produce some stuff that can be devoid of "art for
the sake of art" type of inspiration and give the public what it wants, not what you think it needs.

duccichucka said:

Lammastide said:

And there you have it.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't have a problem with the phenomenon of commercialization. I rather think a certain misanthropy underlies an automatic hatred of all things popular. My disdain comes from a recognition the process of commercialization -- of commoditization -- all too often facilitates the very sort of derivative, boring, poorly produced, and forgettable kitsch that we're discussing here. And I don't see that changing.

Now, is less commercial work necessarily better? Of course not. (I'll confess here that I've never been terribly impressed on a visceral level by any of Janelle's stuff. In that respect, I don't know if I could even be called "a fan." ) But I absolutely have found curveballs like the ones for which Janelle has been known to be more intellectually stimulating and aesthetically expansive at a time when R&B needs that sort of challenge.

[Edited 4/20/15 19:15pm]

Harumph...

I was making a post at a Youtube video featuring a classical composer whereby a fan claimed
that the piece was "too accessible." One responded "But Schumann needed to eat too." In
other words, hate on an artist because they are producing crap. But realize that sometimes,
artistic inspiration can have your stomach grumbling and growling at night. Even Beethoven
produced derivative, boring, poorly written, and forgettable kitsch once in awhile so that he could
live. Artists live mostly by the patronizing of the public. You'd be doing yourself a solid to be
mindful of this, right?

Unless you're lucky like Wagner, or Tchaikovsky, and have a gracious benefactor with deep
pockets, you gotta hustle and bustle and produce some stuff that can be devoid of "art for
the sake of art" type of inspiration and give the public what it wants, not what you think it needs.

Granted. And, again, it seems she's doing exactly this -- mostly in service to Wonderland's up-and-coming artists. Not my cup of tea, but I certainly ain't mad at her.

This is the Janelle I wanna hear.