Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?

Subject: Pink
From: gnu
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 07:39 PM

It has recently come to my desk that certain old Folkers consider Pink to be rather too modern to be classified as a folker. Indeed, this was made quite clear to me in a PM resulting from a post of mine in a thread below the line. Said post was in response to a couple of previous posts. The gist of my offending post was...

I LIKE Pink.

"Pink" was supposed to be a YT but the linkmaker won't do YT, so here's the link... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eDJ3cuXKV4

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: Peace
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 02:16 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eDJ3cuXKV4

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 04:35 AM

Pink is s fine singr but I have never heard her song a folk song (1954 definition)

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: gnu
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 06:46 AM

Thanks Peace. I tried a half dozen times and could not get it to work.

And, thanks to Joe for changing the thread title to sommat more appropriate. "Pink" was a poor title and my only excuse is unacceptable.

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: oldhippie
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 09:05 AM

I really don't classify Pink as a "folkie", however her topical song "Dear Mr President" contains a lot of folk elements.

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: Cllr
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 09:34 AM

her acoustic version (many versions on you tube) of "Trouble" is some of the finest vocals of just a girl and an acoustic guitar i have heard
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QdQnxq33POg

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: LesB
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 10:01 AM

Great pop singer, but in no way folk singer.
Merry Crimbo Les

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 12:36 PM

Here we go with the definitions again.   No wonder "folk music" has such a bad image. Uggh.

Pinks roots may be pop, but she appeals to the contemporary folk community and her music is created and used in the same fashion that traditional music was originally used.

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: gnu
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 01:48 PM

Yeah. Just on accounta some a her music SURELY ain't folk don't mean all her music should be pooh-poohed.

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 02:00 PM

Exactly. Unless the piece fits neatly in the cubby hole that people create, they feel it there is something wrong.   Pink's music grew from rhythm & blues, which should be catagorized as a form of American folk music. She certainly records in a "pop" style, but all GOOD artists allow themselves the opportunity to go beyond self-imposed boundaries. Pink is doing that and creating music that is part of a community.

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 05:23 PM

She's got a great voice and Limpit loves her music... and it is musical music (from what I've heard), so that's a good thing.

ANY singer who encourages youngsters to listen to a proper tune has to be a good thing.

LTS

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: LesB
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 07:00 PM

rhythm & blues? do you mean 'proper' R&B such as all the stuff that the Stones & Beatles & other groups of the era were covering at the time or this warbling pop music that is being passed off as R&B nowdays.
Just because a singer occasionally sings a song about something other than Boy / Girl /Sex/Love/ stuff doesn't make them a 'folk singer' it just makes them a good pop singer.
Cheers
Les

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: gnu
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 07:30 PM

That's the esscence of it, LesB. Yee hit the nail on the head.

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: GUEST,Bob Ryszkiewicz
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 09:06 PM

Hi Kids: Pink understands something that many of you don't. It's that Music is a living, breathing thing. It's changing. It doesn't stay in the same place. It grows. Look around you. All things grow or they die. Folk Music is like that too. The impression that many of you give is that Folk Music "can only be this..." and "cannot be that..." Like it has too be in some form of "Time Vacuum", "Acoustic", "Specific Rhythms" to be"Pure" Well, you might as well take a shotgun and kill it...

MUSICIANS are people who have the ability to COMMUNICATE to those who are NOT musicians. They REACH people. While many of you seem to be content in living in the past. There are others who realize it's a brand new world out there. And what worked 40 years ago just ain't happenin' today. So Pink will use Hip-Hop elements to reach her audience. She can move between genres. She is an Artist. First and foremost. It's just another color in the palette to get her Art to the people.

Who gets this? Bob Dylan, Gordon Lightfoot, Joni Mitchell, Bruce Cockburn, Bare Naked Ladies, Feist, James Blunt, Pink, and many others. They can do it with an acoustic guitar/piano/vocals, or they can plug in...

Odetta got it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jGSiaDj_fw=related
OMG! Electric piano, Amps, freekin' AMPS. WOW...
She's still singing a song, and telling a story...Bless...
And really, how DIFFERENT is that and Pink with "Mr. President?"

So don't be-atch about the "Death of Folk Clubs," "no Airplay on mainstream radio" or other forms of nonsense... Get out there and don't be afraid to try new things, and CREATE in new ways. The music is more important than another pint. Or soon, you will be compost...BR/:<)

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 09:41 PM

"Just because a singer occasionally sings a song about something other than Boy / Girl /Sex/Love/ stuff doesn't make them a 'folk singer' it just makes them a good pop singer"

Methinks you are reading in black and white and not understanding the concept - and also I am betting that you have never listened to Pink.

As to "proper" - that might be the whole issue. "Proper" infers an individual judgement being passed.

If she weighs the same as a duck shes made of wood and therefore a witch.

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 10:30 PM

If I am reading that correctly, since when did "folk" NOT include Boy / Girl /Sex/Love/ stuff??

I listened to her Dear Mr. President and think it is a very good folk-type song. I think it's great that she crosses over the genres!

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 12:24 AM

Why does someone always try to make out a case for their current favourite pop sensation or whatever being a folksinger ?

eric

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: M.Ted
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 01:29 AM

The Beatles and the Rolling Stones have never been part of the definition of "proper" R&B that I know. As to Pink, it is fairly clear that whatever she is doing now, there is a really solid traditional gospel/blues/R&B basis to it. If you can't hear it, well, that's your problem...

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 05:04 AM

I would think, that the last thing she would want to be classified as, is a folk singer.
After all, she probably wants to find fame and fortune, and earn big bucks.
When was the last time a folk singer made No.1 in the hit parade?

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: LesB
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 06:38 AM

Kate, "If I am reading that correctly, since when did "folk" NOT include Boy / Girl /Sex/Love/ stuff??"
It does, but only a part of it. Subjects other than this are rarer than hens teeth in pop.
Ron " Methinks you are reading in black and white and not understanding the concept "
I probably am reading more in black and white, but don't patronise me. Just enjoy or don't, I get fed up with people trying to anylize averything.
The question was "Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker"? I don't think "modern" comes into it. You either think she is or isn't. It's all down to taste.
Cheers
Les

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: Andrez
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 07:27 AM

Well I can see the possibility that Pinks song Dear Mr President could easily slip into the oral tradition as a song of these times that asks serious questions of the powers that be (or were as the case happens to be now). No less so than "How many roads......." did all those years ago.

On the basis of that song I started listening much more closely to the lyrics of Pinks other songs and lo and behold found she has actually got something to say about things in a quirky and very contemporary way. Putting it another way Pinks songs have "content" which is more than most of "modern" commercial music.

Topicality, relevance, interesting use of language, imagery are at least some of the qualities in songs that lend themselves to making an emotional impact on people hearing Pinks songs. That at least is part of the start of the folk process. The musical treatment, arrangements and all the rest of the packaging really represent the current context of Pinks work and gives no indication of how it might be perceived in a decade or two or three. No less so than modern renditions of songs from the thirties, forties and fifties, let alone the 18th and 19th centuries!

As Les says above, "Its all down to taste" and the lens you are using to look at the issue. I suspect the 1954 definition of "Folk" is not at all helpful in understanding Pinks place in contemporary music or where she might fit in the longer term.

Cheers,

Andrez

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 07:47 AM

Trying to say "if I like it it must be folk" is like the Mormons baptizing their deceased relatives to save them regardless of what they might have had to say about it.

From the bits I've seen on YouTube she does seem pretty good. "Acoustic pop" does not necessarily mean "crap".

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: gnu
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 09:03 AM

Ummm... ahhh... okay (to nobody in particular). But, read a bit of most every post before you umm, ahh, err... comment. Yeah, comment... that's the right word. Or, at least read the first few posts.

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 09:06 AM

"I probably am reading more in black and white, but don't patronise me. Just enjoy or don't, I get fed up with people trying to anylize averything."

Then please do not patronize us if you do not wish to have your opinions challenged. You have a concept of what constitutes "folk" and you have blinders to concepts on what consititutes a tradition in contemporary society.   Please follow your own advice if you are fed up with people analyizing everything.

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 11:11 AM

I don't know or care whether or not she is folk, I like Pink too. So much energy. Good listening.

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 11:25 AM

I'd just like to add something - part apology and part attempt at clairification.

I would not consider Pink a "folk singer" in the traditional sense. I apologize to Les if I sounded "patronizing" (not my intent) or too harsh (out of frustration). Les is following a traditional definition of folk music and I do understand the point that many people make.

This is where I deviate. I would hate to have my life and interests ruled by definitions.   While I understand a need to classification in some cases, I also see those classifications as limiting.

I have a passion for folk music.   I love the history behind traditional songs and feel that they are gems that have been handed down from other generations - generations that took time to create such jewels.

At the same time I look at modern society and realize that the same interests that drove Cecil Sharp and other collectors to discover music still exist in terms of passion and desire, but modern advances have altered the path. Someone once came up with the term "oral tradition" as a way of describing how songs were passed on. The method of preserving these songs, orally, was based more on limitations and practices of the time - there were no recording devices and an intersest in saving these songs did not exist - so putting a song to paper was not a priority.   Nowadays we have a recognition of why it is important to preserve our heritage, and we have alternate methods of preserving and teaching others the music.

I would not invite Pink to a folk festival based on the music she has so far recorded, nor would I invite the Rolling Stones or any other group that created music for commercial reasons. At the same time, there is legitimate reason to look at the songs of these individuals and realize that there is a separation from "pop" and "folk" that DOES exist in contemporary music.

I realize that many people have an anal retentive desire to cling to 1954 definitions and the work that they have studied and come to know.   I understand that their steadfast desire to preserve older definitions is based on a passion - a passion that created a body of work that has been preserved for future generations, and a 51 year old radio host to enjoy and learn from.   

I can only wish that people do go beyond their self-imposed boundaries to listen and perhaps examine how such songs and singers might fit into a more realistic definition of what folk music should be.   A Steve Earle or a Pink deserve to be heard.

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Dec 08 - 11:28 AM

"there is a separation from "pop" and "folk" that DOES exist in contemporary music."

Further clarification - there are songs that are written and recorded purely for commercial interests. Those same artists CAN write songs in a different social context that come from a different persepective and roots.

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: gnu
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 09:13 PM

Got some people to hear that song that may not have ever heard it, or heard Pink.

I know there is more music out there than any of us will ever hear. But, sometimes, a song moves your soul and you have to ask.... people to listen... to see if they hear what you hear.

As for the title of the thread, or some of the discussion generated from the title, read the whole thread and you will understand.... take a walk with me.

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: GUEST,Dani
Date: 14 Jan 09 - 09:23 PM

Hey, one definition I use for 'folk' is, do I want my kids to listen to it to learn something about life?

My favorite Pink song (Stupid Girls) is a smart, biting commentary on... too many things to list:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JqOdwrogVU

(you gotta watch to the end : )

Dani

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 03:31 AM

"As to Pink, it is fairly clear that whatever she is doing now, there is a really solid traditional gospel/blues/R&B basis to it."

And how does that make it "folk"?

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 04:39 AM

I just watched the clip - reasonably intelligent acoustic pop music, imho. It's a bit of an indictment of the pop industry when the rest of it is such superficial, mass-produced pap that any time something aims a little higher, people feel the urge to re-classify it...

I think I liked Pink better when she was Tank Girl, instead of coming over all profound and worthy. "This is one of the most important songs I've ever written." Hmmmmm...

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 09:35 AM

Why does someone always try to make a case for their current favourite pop sensation being a folk singer ?

Dave H

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 09:38 AM

Kirsty MacColl was a great songwriter, but her songs were far too intelligent for pop fans which is why she never recieved the success she so richly desereved, but no one ever tried to make out she was a folk singer.

Dave H

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 09:56 AM

Pink?

Never 'eard of 'er - but a great singer/writer.

Clearly some greyness/confusion of definitives though.

This seems a protest song - is that same as folk?

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 10:15 AM

"And how does that make it "folk"? "

How does it not?

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: M.Ted
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 11:16 AM

Well Howard, I didn't actually say it was..However, Gospel/Blues/R&B are generally considered traditional music. Even if you don't think so, the more prominent ethnomusicological institutions do.

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: paula t
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 03:29 PM

I like Pink. A very perceptive and talented performer. She deals with the issues of today - as the writers of what we now call "traditional folk" did in their day.
Long may she continue .

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: gnu
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 04:22 PM

Maybe if I post it AGAIN? Maybe.... noy likely, but...

I was taken to task in a PM for saying, "I LIKE Pink." on a previous thread. The PM was to the effect that Pink was not folk. That is, that I shouldn't be citing her music in The Café.

I didn't say she was. I didn't say ANYTHING but what I said. (Again, READ the thread!!!!!)

Thanks to those who support any and all artists in what they do, no matter how some people define it... and subsequently dismiss it based on same.

Jaysus... some a youse gotta get the stick out!

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: Sleepy Rosie
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 04:41 PM

Isn't there a tear-stained slo-motion scene, from yet another pulpy American TV series that this belongs as the soundtrack to? You know the one - they've just broken up, she's walking down the street. Autumn leaves and old newspapers are caught in the breeze. He's gazing out from his apartment window, watching the traffic go by... And I've switched over to watch Star Treck.

Sorry, but that's pretty average sounding stuff however classified IMHO... :-/

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 05:00 PM

A pox on both sides of the debate, I say.

Was Sun Ra an opera singer?

Was Peter Bellamy a classically trained trombone player?

Are Napalm Death the new R'n'B?

Are TV on the Radio a frying pan?

Is an orchestra a lump of earwax?

So what? So what?

Is it any good? Is that not a purely subjective question and absolutely nowt else?. Does it actually matter on any level - profound or banal - whether or not Pink is folk (or 'too modern for folk' - whatever that even means!).

I love folk music me, or some folk music, anyway. I also love loads of other sorts of music. It would never in a million years occur to me to ask the question 'Is Charles Mingus or Robert Wyatt or the Wooden Shjipps or Six Organs of Admittance for instance' folk. None of them are and its a silly question. Neither is Pink. Neither is she for me fit to lick the boots of any of the other non-folkies on my very short list above of musical demigods. In my opinion, which can and only can be a place where I speak for myself.

Does anyone really listen to a bit of music and go "Hmmm... quite liked that. I wonder... might it be folk?"

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 05:02 PM

And finally, how bored must you have been feeling when you started this thread, Gnu? ;-)

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: Hallf-A-Mo
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 05:59 PM

And I can't believe the debate is still going on! I can remember Davey Graham being declared not a folk guitarist, don't think Martin Carthy would agree. And as for the debate over 'traditional'...

Folk, world, roots, all labels, all meaningless.

Amplified, acoustic, a capella, all irrelevant.

We like what we like, we each see parallels that others don't.

If I ran a folk club, I'd book Pink to turn up with an acoustic guitar, and I reckon we'd all have a bloody good night too. Better than with some 'folk' singers I could think of!

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: gnu
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 06:27 PM

Spleeny Boy... or Girl... or Whatever (that would be my guess)... how bored must you be to rant so silly and then shit on me? Read the thread. Then, fuck off. (Just firgured I would sum up my sentiments regarding your posts in a manner which you might comprehend without a lot of reeeeding.)

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 06:59 PM

Gnu - you utterly missed the point of my post, man. If you think that's a rant, you ain't seen nothing.

Did you see this ;-) in my post? It's a grin and wink, hardly 'shitting on you' as you so delicately put it.

And careful with the ad hominem attacks, too. Not called for, pal.

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: gnu
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 07:07 PM

;-) right back at ya, Spleen. And, that was not an attack, that was a sincerely put defense... big difference. It was called for. >;-)

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 09:00 PM

It matters because lots of young and old people are trying to express themselves in a vernacular type of music, but in England the only way you will reviewed in the folk magazines and on folk radio is aping the music of fifty or a hundred years ago.

There will be no record of the folk music of our time, because the people that were charged with the resposibility of presenting it(in many cases with public funds) decided they would run a sort of geriatric social club instead.

for every Pink and similar artist there are dozens of people inspired by them - their work explaining what it was like to live in our modern age - will be gone forever.

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: bald headed step child
Date: 15 Jan 09 - 10:15 PM

First off I would say that I would not classify Pink as a "folkie",but I am a fan of her music.

As for whether her influences are based in blues or r&b, I would say to listen to her earlier music, sorry I can't remember if it was 1st or 2nd album.

My stepdaughter from a previous marriage was the one to introduce me to Pink. I was, and still am, very much into the blues when the music coming from the other room caught my ear. It was very familiar but I couldn't place who exactly.

I should say that the blues I listened to at home was more 20's and 30's stuff and I could not get the kids to listen to it at all.

I did have luck with the young lady by taking her slowly back thru Tina Turner, to Billie Holiday, Bessie Smith, and even Ma Rainey. It gave her more of an appreciation of the continuity of the music and got her listening to stuff that wasn't pop.

Today she even calls herself a fan of Marcia Ball and Bonnie Raitt, and I don't think you can say they aren't "real" blues.

So the point I am trying to make is much the same as others have said above, She is good, so what if she makes a little money doing pop stuff. I don't hear too many people on here criticising Neil Young as not being folk, but Crazy Horse ain't folk.

There is a continuity in the music. And by the way when you say you can't post this stuff on this folk site, you need to remember that this site started as a BLUES and traditional music site.

So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

BHSC

Subject: RE: Pink-too modern to be classified as a folker?
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 17 Jan 09 - 04:44 AM

Nice one, Gnu! ;->