I always marvel at people who complain about the Kingston Trio's lack of "folk" credentials and then in the same breath talk about how they loved groups like the Weavers or New Lost City Ramblers or other folk revival artists.   All of these groups "borrowed" songs that they learned from other sources.   The only knock you could make on the Kingston Trio were that they never hid the fact that they had no "authenticity" and freely admitted to being entertainers.   They found a way to make money with the music, which apparently is another sin. You would think that they somehow managed to burn or hide all the other sources. They also inspired countless others to become "fans" of folk music. Imagine that - actually breaking up the country club atmosphere!!   They even had the nerve to copyright some of the traditional songs. Oh, sorry, I forgot that it was the Weavers who did that before the Kingston Trio.

It is kind of ironic when you think about it - the only artists who can really be considered "authentic" are the singer-songwriters who actually write about their own experiences.

We've really drifted from Martin's original post, and I am as guilty as anyone for that. Again, I feel that the Kingston Trio should carry on. The fact that the group has been performing nearly non-stop for 47 years (with the exception of a sabbatical during the late 60's, early 70's), the group has an established lineup and sound. It is not like a group of new artists suddently adopting the name and going on the road.   Haworth & Groves have a right to add Zorn to the group and carry on. I am not sure who actually owns the name, but I am guessing it is Bob Shane. He certainly has the right to see the legacy carried on.

I'm not a huge Kingston Trio fan either. I do respect their place in history and I do think that their performances are fun.   Nothing beats a healthy well cooked meal, but every now and then a slice of pizza hits the spot.