Stringsinger wrote:

(quote) The role of music in society is an analogue for what we are experiencing now. Artistic pursuits are denegrated to money making or treated as “entertainment” for diversion. Our culture is one of escapism and trivializing rather than reaching for meaning in our lives. Folk music is in danger of being considered a cute pastime rather than an important index into our history (end quote)

Was it not always thus, to varying degrees? Even in the days of the "folk scare" (thinking Greenwich Village early 60s), and through following decades, performers had to make their act "entertaining" enough that promoters/club owners etc; would book them - no audience, no repeat work. In most cases the "entertainment" aspect would then be a "front" for deeper engagement with the music through the set. Presentation of folk music as a serious, academic-only, special interest pursuit has never had much popular appeal even though on some occasions it may be warranted (such as performances by important singers/musicians from the past, received with some reverence hopefully).

Of course there are other areas (such classical music) where the music is expected to speak for itself (appeal directly to the senses) without requiring a veneer of "entertainment", and some folk music does that as well - again part of the mix. But rarely "popular" except perhaps at the peak of the "folk boom" when (e.g.) Pentangle could sell out the Royal Albert Hall, mostly an underground/niche area that relies on local level support for its ongoing existence (I am discounting the folk-pop singers here e.g. the John Denver types who successfully made the transition to the world of popular entertainment - although arguably some have done this as well without losing their integrity, think maybe Alison Krauss, Emmylou Harris etc. on the U.S. scene, not sure who their equivalents would be in the U.K.).

Cheers - Tony