Sorry ~ I didn't mean to characterize "Norwegian Wood" as "easily playable."

When I used that phrase "easily playable," I was trying to communicate that I understood you to have characterized the opinions of others in their acceptance of a given number as "folk music" as being based on their ability to comprehend and play the song. In other words, only stuff as simple as "Kumbaya" gets recognized as "true folk music" while other songs are excluded because of their perceived (or actual) complexity.

I probably assumed, somewhere along the line, that those who seem to shun the more complex pieces are those who would NOT accept "Norwegian Wood" as appropriate fare for their folk-music venues. However, looking back, I see that some writer was quoted as having accepted Norwegian Wood as "folk music." So I see where the misunderstanding came in.

"Real" folksongs, of course, don't exist in a single written-in-stone key ~ they can be transposed, via capo and/or rearrangement, and still remain the same song. Perhaps "faking" NW as closely as one can is folk music, while striving to duplicate the recorded arrangement is something else.

Here's hoping I haven't just made things more complicated and thus less understandable.

I never tried to play NW exactly like the record, but here's an observation off the top of my head:

Lennon may very likely have retuned his guitar to George's sitar, winding up two half-steps up (or perhaps approximately two steps higher than concert pitch, not exactly). Then, of course, he could have played the D-major chord shapes that everyone seems to hear in the piece, and it would come out in E (or "near-E").

(If I've gotten the whole thing ass-backwards, and the guitar is tuned down rather than up, the same principle should still apply.)