First, Joanna Newsom leaked. Second, according to the person who uploaded it to private bit torrent site Indietorrents, it may have been pilfered from here (link is broken now, obviously), Pitchforkmedia's sprawling illegal download hub, which includes everything they reviewed this year and a "Cursive Megadiscography" as well as "Rob's [Mitchum] Fiery Furnaces Bootleg Folder." Among others. After a brief invasion by the message boarders of Hipinion, it went down. Coincidentally, the Hipinion forums crashed just after.
But anyway, Joanna Newsom leaked, and everything you've heard about it -- Jim O'Rourke's involvement, Steve Albini's recording, Bill Calahan of Smog doing guest vocals, Van Dyke Parks writing the best string arrangements of his career - all true. The best part is Joanna's songs and performances are still the centerpiece, and they're absolutely masterful. This is as beautiful and weird and heartwrenching as music is going to get in 2006.
You can download "Emily" over at The Rich Girls Are Weeping.
(Ys is due from Drag City Records on Nov. 14)
posted by Dave Rawkblog @ 9:15 PM 
Comments (40)
This is how it's done, people. Give this man a Bloggie.
As of last night, this release has popped up on some locations in mp3. One uploader left the comment: "Snatched from silly ol' pitchforkmedia. Fools."
This is not good for them.
Not good for whom? :)
I've gotta say, if music bloggers ever want to be taken seriously in the music industry, they can't be doing shit like this. Y'all should do yourselves -- and Joanna Newsom -- a favor, and pull the mp3. It's completely wack when an advance gets leaked like this, and you know it. Post the story (it's a good one), but leave the mp3 out of it. Do you think this is some kind of 'scoop'? Any music journalist on the planet could leak any of the hundreds of advance CDs they get in the mail every year. They choose not to. Shame on you. What you just did is the journalistic equivalent of stealing candy from a blind, disabled, and premature infant.
sure is easy to lecture when you post anonymously!
Is there something wrong with posting anonymously? Why is the option there?
Oh, hah! I see, this rawk blog thing is yours! Defensive...
You got an answer buddy, or do you think my anonymous posting outweighs the issue at hand?
if you're going to take the moral high ground, you should be willing to back yourself up. if you're not going to post your name, you have no credibility.
this blog never posts leaks, and is making an exception because this is one of the year's absolute best records. i hardly think offering a single track as a limited-time-only download (the service I use caps downloads at 100) is a major ethical transgression when the album is freely available to anyone who knows how to use Google -- especially for a niche record of 10 minute harp ballads sung by a squawky indie-elf that can probably use all the press it can get.
As for music journalists not leaking records...who do you think is doing it, Scientologists?
Since the opinions of an anonymous poster aren't credible, I'll just let you do the talking.
"this blog never posts leaks... and is making an exception..."
-- never
"...i hardly think offering a single track as a limited-time-only download (the service I use caps downloads at 100) is a major ethical transgression..."
-- limited download
"...a niche record of 10 minute harp ballads sung by a squawky indie-elf that can probably use all the press it can get."
-- killing momentum
"As for music journalists not leaking records...who do you think is doing it, Scientologists?"
-- what's the title of this post?
"...to anyone who knows how to use Google..."
-- see above
Listen man, I apologize if I'm coming across as snarky. I just think that you're playing with fire here. I've heard the album, and frankly, I agree. It's incredible, and will likely go down as one of the best of 2006. Trust me, it's gonna get all the press it needs (you should see the press kit). The thing is, for an album to sell, buzz needs to build towards the release. That's the problem with leaking advances. The album is going to be old news by the time mid-November rolls around. You know how fast this industry moves!
You say you like Ys, I assume you like the Joanna Newsom, and I'm guessing you appreciate Drag City. Realize -- they're the ones who get fucked by a lopsided and mismanaged buzz campaign, which is what a leak like this contributes to. 3 weeks from album release? A leak might be a good thing. But 3 MONTHS!!! Not good.
Obviously, album leaks and file-sharing will continue, but as music lovers and music writers, we should be doing our best to respect the delicate process that gets records sold -- and ultimately -- keeps artists like Joanna Newsom and labels like Drag City in business.
Take it down man, that's all I'm saying.
good thing i already wrote a whole essay about this very topic, huh?
Dude, the reason promos go out 3 months early is so that they can match magazine lead times -- and therefore time with the album release! Again, magazines print their issues 3 months in advance. Got it? In your "essay" you say "Rolling Stone will still review it if it's been out a couple weeks". If they did that, they 'd be almost a quarter of a year behind the release! If and when the internet kills print media, albums will be kept under wraps until the bitter end -- and therefore time with the album release.
What kind of magic number do you think 3 months is? There's a very good reason for it!
Are you a journalism student?
You know, forget it. I'm not a music blogger. I'm not trying to start some retarded comment war. I'm appealing to you to take the track down. That is all that this is about. You're doing Joanna Newsom a disservice by leaving it up. Not me.
Hey, anonymous: This is just a preemptive strike -- don't come attack me next. I am a "traditional" journalist, I fully understand the 3 month lead time you natter on and on about -- but I swear, if you come spew your crap in my blog next, I will not be kind. Just FYI.
It's ONE track. Not the whole album. Please. Get a grip.
I'm posting "anonymously" because I don't have a Blogger account. But my name is Ben. And I think "Anonymous" is 100% right, and that though this blog can post all manner of feeble justification they want, in the end there's no excusing -- morally or legally -- the screwing over of an artist you allegedly like by offering any of their shit for free, regardless of context.
That said, I DID download the song. So I'm an asshole, too.
There's no excusing -- morally or legally -- the screwing over of an artist you allegedly like by offering any of their shit for free, regardless of context.
Welcome to MP3 blogging, pal. Ask Clap Your Hands or Tapes 'N Tapes or Bishop Allen if they feel "screwed" by people giving away their music.
As for lead times, comic books are printed three months early, not news magazines. C'mon. And my essay was directed at smaller labels like Drag City who aren't going to get -- or benefit from -- magazine coverage, who would do better to take advantage of the online audience. Print criticism has been outdated for most of this decade. A former SPIN editor said as much in Wired this week.
morally or legally
1) lol @ morally
2) tell that to p4k
Wait, I don't get it? Cindy Hotpoint -- what's your point? Why intimidate?
I mean, seriously --
"...but I swear, if you come spew your crap in my blog next, I will not be kind. Just FYI."
Explain to me again what the comment section of a blog is for?
I'm glad that you're aware of the 3-month magazine lead. Kindly tell Dave here -- who thinks that Rolling Stone doesn't operate on one -- the straight story.
Rolling Stone, Spin, Magnet, XLR8R... Time, Fortune, Wired... all 3-month leads.
Comic books? I wouldn't know.
Cindy, you claim to be a "traditional" journalist. Would you really feel comfortable publicly giving away tracks from an advance CD?
Damn. I guess I just don't understand. I've gotten personal, handwritten notes from labels asking, even pleading that I keep a wrap on the advances they send. I mean, it's music. It's not whistleblowing or political journalism! Why wouldn't somebody want to do right by an awesome, small scale indie label like Drag City?
Ben u know what an mp3 blog is rite
I earn my keep as a "traditional" journalist. I just do this fucking blog crap for fun. Whatevs. You don't know me, so don't make assumptions.
I'm still sticking to my story here, kids. Thing one: I have NEVER been asked to remove a track by a label. N-E-V-E-R. You hear that, anonymous? Ok, well, once, a friend who manages one of those HOTT internet buzz bands begged me not to post anything but approved tracks -- but that was preemptive, and I wasn't planning on posting anything because all the other bloggers out there had already done so. So, kind of a bad example. Anyway, Thing Two: POSTING ONE TRACK, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE DUMB LABEL IS POINTEDLY ESCHEWING INTERNET PROMOTION FOR SOME IDIOTIC REASON, POSSIBLY EVEN AS A BIG FUCK YOU TO BLOGGERS (that is, if what Stereogum posted a few weeks ago was accurate...), IS NOT THE END OF THE WORLD. It isn't disrespectful to the artist, it isn't disrespectful to the label. I'm pretty sure that no-one here's posted more than ONE TRACK. Most people I know hate Joanna Newsom, I'd like them to know that this record is extremely different than Milk-Eye'd Mender. How am I gonna do that? Especially if Drag City is being so persockity with their promotional efforts? I think posting one track is probably okay. So I ask you, seriously, what's the big fucking deal here? No one is posting the whole album anywhere. The only people who did that were PITCHFORK, a supposedly legitimate media outlet who want us all to take them seriously. Go fucking pick on them, for crissakes.
And, I suppose you can come engage me on my blog, but at this point, I'll probably just ignore you, or at the very least only level you with a pithy jibe because you're a broken record who's obviously got some kind of reading comprehension issue.
Oh, and I'd like to point out that I didn't post that track on YouSendIt that I linked to (which by the way, is no longer available -- too many people tried to dl it) -- I didn't need to. I found the link on a much less-trafficked blog and ganked it.
Welcome to the Wild West of Journalism. I love it here.
No blogger account here, normaly just a lurker.
Here's the deal though....how many people do you think will download the record over the next three months? And then not bother to purchase it.
So then we have all the money Drag City will pour into getting a marvelous record to the public going down the drain. So what happens to the next (SMOG) record then? When the labels strapped for cash?
I love getting an adavanced track as much as the next person....but three months ahead of time all you chuckle heads are going on and on about the full record being available everywhere.
And most of you aren't going to shell out a shiny dime for it.
So all the talk about loving the artist and appreiating the hard working indie label is reduced to bullshit pandering.
I know I'm going to cut down on the advances I send out now. At least with that kind of lead time. It's things like this that make labels treat things like a "priority" release and try to keep everything under wraps as long as possible before street date.
RS in Minneapolis.
Normally, I think leaking a single song from a promo couldn't do much damage to anybody (the viewpoint of "anonymous" that this is always bad is a bit extreme), but this is a weird record.. I mean, that song is twelve minutes long, it constitutes over a fifth of the album, it'd be the equivalent of leaking maybe three songs off a typical record. It brings up an interesting issue as to how Drag City are going to promote this CD.. no singles, no videos, I can't imagine they'll get much radio play or TV coverage, and I can foresee it getting panned by some critics (because they'll react against the super-long songs as "overindulgence" or something similiar). I like the album but I think Joanna Newsom might have an uphill struggle to sell it beyond her hardcore audience.
For the record, from my friend the former Rolling Stone writer: "Most of it was about a two-week lead time."
All I want to know is how you got Beast Moans and why it hasn't leaked yet.
What Jen said.
Also, I really could see anonymous having a point if our friend Dave here was hosting the entire album. He's not, he's hosting a single song, much like Joanna Newsom's myspace does. Furthermore, he's doing it for the same reasons that Joanna Newsom's myspace page is - to promote awareness and hype for this beautiful artist and her glorious new album. The label may not like the entire album being out there for illegal download, but that's not what Dave is doing here. The point is moot.
Also, I'd like to bring attention to the fact that I've asked Dave to hook me up with the Swan Lake album and he declined, saying that the label instructed him not to give it away to the masses. Kid's legit, anonymous.
I am buying this record the day it comes out and I must say I probably wouldn't have if I wasn't able to sample this track. I love it and I can't wait to own a copy. By providing me a sample of this album I know I want to own it. See anonymous- It actually can persuade people to buy not just the other way around.
what's all this talk of screwing over artists, then? joanna's doing fine, and so is drag city. look at the budget poured into this release, just on the strength of the first full-length's performance. if you're honestly worried about our favourite indie harpist having to get a day job, send her ten bucks after you download the record. because you know what? it's impossible to "steal" music or "screw" an artist - art belongs to the people, and i'll not be compelled to pay admission to my own culture. not by drag city, not by lars ulrich, not by the riaa, and certainly not by anonymous moralising blog-commenters.
Ys will receive enough critical accolades, that's sooo settled, and rightfully so - 100000 blog posts won't change that. It's much more likely that the pre-release enthusiasm wins the album even more fans.
Anyway, I've not posted a Ys-track since for me it seems too much like one big song and I didn't want to rip it apart. But well, if listening to "Emily" makes people want to listen to the whole thing (and exactly this will be the case), it's more than okay to give them the chance.
For all the people harping on the "ooh, you're stealing from artists!" bandwagon:
What the fuck do you think the point of radio is?
Do you think artists get money from radio plays? Yes, they do. Very, very little. Ditto with album sales. The point of both is EXPOSURE: getting the word out. The money comes from -- always has, always will -- touring your ass off. Period. I'll even go as far as arguing that leaking MP3's puts money INTO artists' pockets by exposing them to a massive international market FOR FREE.
word
"...but I swear, if you come spew your crap in my blog next, I will not be kind. Just FYI."
"And, I suppose you can come engage me on my blog, but at this point, I'll probably just ignore you, or at the very least only level you with a pithy jibe because you're a broken record who's obviously got some kind of reading comprehension issue."
Holy crap! What's your deal Cindy? I never said a single word about commenting on your blog. I don't know anything about your blog! I don't read your blog! I don't care about your blog! I really don't! I mean, I'm sure it's fantastic and that you find all sorts of fulfillment in your snarky hot-headed I-Live-In-Austin-But-My-Heart-Is-In-New-York self-entitled music blogosphere police patrol, but really...
Again --
"...but I swear, if you come spew your crap in my blog next, I will not be kind. Just FYI."
"And, I suppose you can come engage me on my blog, but at this point, I'll probably just ignore you, or at the very least only level you with a pithy jibe because you're a broken record who's obviously got some kind of reading comprehension issue."
A little self-centered, aren't we?
Um, yes. I'm the most self-centered girl ever.
Actually, anon, I posted my premptive strike here since you seemed to be going after anyone who'd posted a track from Ys. And yes, I feel I was perfectly justified in doing this, since you seemed like the kind of person who would come after me next for posting a track. That's all.
There's really no need to get snarky about it.
Well, for what it's worth, I guess that's the danger of posting anonymously. This is actually the only blog I even looked at, definitely the only one I commented on. If there was backlash elsewhere, it wasn't me.
Well, at least we've got that straightened out now. There's just too many darn anons. running about. Y'all be careful out there!
A new anon here... couldn't help but comment.
First of all Michael: Are you for real? "Art belongs to the people." No. Art belongs to the artist and/or licensor (read your copyright laws, buddy). It's for the benefit of the people. But nice way to try to justify getting your shit for free! Art stops being made if the artists can't support themselves. They're too busy working real jobs where their paychecks can't be stolen by supposed "fans."
As far as whether Drag City benefits from this... Here's their own opinion on the matter, straight from the horses mouth:
"Drag City, Newsom’s Chicago-based label, evidently isn’t pleased with the Web leak. One publicity rep told the Phoenix, 'We prefer it[’]s not talked about since it was something nobody is happy about and we do not want more people illegally getting the music.'"
(9.13.06 thephoenix.com)
You can justify it all you want. Still doesn't make it right, and now you can NOT say that Drag City doesn't mind.
you could post the whole album, and I'd download it all and when the album came out I'd still buy it.
I think one track is good. It may get new listeners. At least thats how I find most of my new bands.
I love miss newsoms music...and callahans. Yay!
Three things:
1. I'm way late discovering this conversation, so my comment will go unread, and that's fine.
2. Agree entirely with anonymous, as I work in the publishing industry. His/her perceptively extreme viewpoint doesn't concern Newsom fans; I am one, and I will buy the album upon release date. For the record, I still enjoy having the artwork in my hands, and I won't be sampling any of the album versions before November.
What anonymous is addressing is how fickle the public is. Most of them will have forgotten this album by then. Some of you are acting as if this will be the first time this has occurred. I digress.
3. In support of the bloggers, how is sampling one (1) mp3 any different than hearing a single on the radio? On the surface level, these are the same. The problem now becomes a legal one, because radio songs, unlike mp3s, don't fall under the complicated umbrella of transfers of ownership re: licenses to the material. I have no desire to lecture on this subject, as I have a very basic understanding myself, but the gist is that when you buy an album, you have a legal right to the music for your personal use. This applies to all formats, mp3 being a booming one. Giving away mp3s is a legal nightmare just as it is a vital promotional tool for independant bands and labels. Investigate this matter at will, for I will forever abandon this discussion.
I'm even later to the party, and yet another new anonymous blogger so undoubtedly my post will go unread...
But I had to post with regards MP3vsRadio.
There is a massive difference between MP3 downloading/streaming and radio, and it is all about demand.
On the radio, you have no choice as to the exact tracks they play, maybe you know what the genre will be, maybe if a requests show you can influence, *but you are not in control*
With an MP3 stream like myspace you can listen on demand to exactly what you want to hear, nothing more, nothing less. Same goes for download.
Have a look on www.pandora.com - for example. As it is a radio, you cannot demand a certain track.
...not to mention that the artist actually gets PAID every time their song airs on the radio.
about half of this post is true
also, this blog is gayer than penis fencing
Post a Comment
<< Home