Nice quote Frank.

Once again we have a lot of people voicing opinions which they believe to be fact, without regard to the thousands of words that have been written in previous threads and with no judgeable, definable things......simply, "I think folk music is whatever I say it is." Bull. That's not a definition or a classification...its an opinion. And its an opinion unfettered with even moderate respect for not the 91 posts, but more like 91 threads, that have been done here. And if you don't have time to read the words of the Sandy Patons, Art Thiemes, and Frank Hamiltons, go have a beer and shut up.

The record companies call all kinds of crap folk, but is it?

If you want to read an interesting idea on this as far as the ability to actually categorize, try reading Bill D.'s post on a thread called "What Isn't Folk?" CLICK HERE

Sandy once commented that the word has been stolen and he's right. But it would be nice if we could agree on a classification system......Dylan (much as I may enjoy him) ain't folk. The song you wrote yesterday ain't folk. Tom Paxton songs are folk style, but they ain't folk. Check back in a few generations. But these songs may be in a folk or traditional style and the writer's roots may be in folk/trad and all that's great. Now if they stand the test of time, enough people sing them and pass them along, the folk processs, oral tradition (even in some new forms)........maybe then they're folk.

I like folk songs and songs recently written, that are in the style of traditional folk music. Often I like the new ones better, the folkstyle ones. I'll pass them along as will you yours and we see what happens.

Spaw