There is no need for anyone to turn this into a typical BS thread. The name calling should stop. We are all losing sight of the topic of this thread.

"dumbed down, watered down takes on this music which has an honored and respected history."

That is a matter of opinion. I do not consider what Springsteen did to these songs anything different than what Pete Seeger did to them.   No one "owns" them, but everyone "owns" them. 100 years ago it would not have been as common to see a guitar in use. At one point the violin was an instrument of the court. Banjos were developed from an African instrument. Many of us on this forum probably developed our love during the folk revival of the 50's and 60's. Much of that revival was built on a commercial interest in folk music that traced its roots back to the work of the "purists".

What do we consider "purist" these days? I would bet each one of us has our own definition.   Earlier in this tread someone mentioned Woody Guthrie. By most musiciologists definition, he was far from a folk singer. Yet he is a name that many of us think synonomous with folk music.

When I first started doing a radio show back in 1980, I had the honor of meeting Pete Seeger for the first time. When I mentioned I was doing a folk radio show, he told me that folk music is something that a mother sings to a child and can't be played on the radio. It took a while to sink in, but I saw his point. As soon as a microphone was introduced, the music ceased to be "folk" music. The microphone added a level of performance that altered the music from its original intent. The work of all the collectors and archivists merely resulted in a copy of the music - not a true reproduction.   Sort of like a photograph. It captures a moment, but does it truly give a full impression of that lost moment in time? Can you feel the breeze, know the warmth of the sun, smell the flower, etc? We can use our imagination to fill in the blanks, but we cannot recreate that moment.

So what does that mean? Should I stop doing radio? Should Dick Greenhaus stop selling CD's? Should performers quit recording and start turning down gigs? Should we close the festivals? Should Mudcat shut off its servers?

No.

Each of us are drawn to this music because of a love. We can make our own music, or share the music of others. There is nothing wrong with a folk revival that truly respects and shares. Modern technology has altered the oral tradition and it is now easier to trace the DNA of songs. There is nothing wrong with enjoying music, no matter what we call it or no matter what it sounds like.

We are too reliant on labels. Folk, acoustic, singer-songwriter, etc. - we are in danger of losing the essence of what makes the song important to US. We spend our time arguing why the other guys music is not "folk" and we end up in small enclaves that no longer share or invite others to join in.   That is where I draw the line for my tastes.   I may not like everything that I hear, but I won't spend time knocking another person for enjoying music.   I don't care what they will call it - there will always be room for my tastes.

Enough of my rambling.   Listen and judge for youself. If you don't like, fine. If you enjoy it - have fun!