Steve G: I see nothing wrong in using qualifiers like 'traditional', 'contemporary'.

The passage of time makes a difference, though - or rather, at this stage, the passage of time has made a difference. As Bryan pointed out, people have been writing things that they liked to call folk songs for quite some time. I know people who have a contemporary repertoire of songs by Graeme Miles and Martin Graebe, and a traditional repertoire of songs by Cyril Tawney and Sidney Carter. (Songs using traditional forms? Some of them, definitely; that includes some of the contemporary songs. But mostly they're just "folk club songs": songs that everyone knows because they've been taken up in folk clubs over the years.) There's a difference between the "open mic" type of event, where you'll hear English traditional songs 5-10% of the time, and the "singaround" type, where it's more like 40-50%, but folk clubs dedicated to traditional music... well, I've never seen one.

What do we do about this? Do we even want to do anything about this? There are certainly some things we don't want to do. A while ago I started a 'Sightings of the Folk Police' thread, asking people if they'd ever been asked - or (horrors!) if they'd ever asked somebody else - not to sing something because it wasn't traditional. I think one person had a story that fitted, but just the one - and it was quite a long thread. Nobody (or hardly anybody) actually stands at the door of folk clubs saying you can't come in here and sing that!, and I don't think any of us thinks it would be an improvement if that happened more often.

It's not about definitions; it's about the music, and sharing our enthusiasm for the music. Perhaps ultimately it's just about going to 'folk' venues and singing traditional songs (and songs in traditional forms); if it's good enough, somebody will listen.