This reminds you of"Two Sheds" Jackson? Then, to paraphrase another misunderstood literary light, "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here"--

A small point, Mr. Carroll, you misquoted me- I didn't say: "every aspect of his work are fair subjects for discussion and deconstruction", I said "every aspect of his work and life are fair subjects for discussion and deconstruction."--you made a small, but significant omission, and it miscontrues my meaning. At any rate, you can't set the terms for the discussion, even when it seems to be reasonable to focus on his work as an artist. I

Betsy--I think that the ambivalence of your post really embodies what it is all about--on one hand, we have a desire to cut through the cavilling and innuendo and bring the spotlight back on to the work of an important figure, and yet, in defending, we are forced to confront inconsistancies and ommisions that we ourselves can't accept.

And, WeeLittleDrummer-why did the simple act of playing folk music, the most abundant music in the galaxy, become an organized and orchestrated "movement"? MacColl, and Allan Lomax, who, in many ways, was his American counterpart, imposed their own personal, political and social agendas into the practice of playing, collecting, and even creating "folk" music.

Now that they are gone, it's time to look at where the "movement" has been, and why it was there--
Wwhat should we go back to, and what should we leave behind? Is fingerstyle guitar accompaniment really tied irrevocably to "the music of the common people"? How closely does the Sharpe/Child et al canon of folk ballad really correspond to the "music of the common people"--and how real are those "folk roots", anyway?