My speculations as to Seth Lakeman's class were purely because a poster to this thread characterised Seth lakeman as a working class phenomenon, as opposed to the middle-class old school folkies. That caused to wonder if the staement was true in any way. Personally, it is of no concern to me whether he comes from a family of dustbinmen, or his dad's the Duke of Dartmoor.
    The Arran sweater reference phenomenion is interesting. The last reliable spotting of any significance would surely be the Clancys and Robin Hall asnd Jimmy McGregor, back in the 60's.This must be a splendidly long-lived journalistic cliche,perhaps one of the all-time greats: worthy of study in itself. I notice it is used by a poster called Pirandello. What age would you be? Could you tell us if you have been using this phrase since the 60's, or recently picked it up? And if so where?
    An extraordinary feature of this kind of discussion is the number of people(small but notable) who insist that we "ought" to enjoy some kind of new music (in this case, that of Seth Lakeman). Why? It's a matter of taste whether you like it or not. Why "ought" I to like Seth Lakeman? Why "ought" I to like the Arctic Monkeys? Missionary zeal can be quite exhilarating, but it can also be a little disturbing. And this kind of "ought" mentality seems to get confused in some people's heads with whether they classify the music as folk music. Just because someone likes Seth Lakeman's songs, why "ought" they to classify them as folk music. The two things aren't really logically connected. I like the Mikado and Beethoven's 6th Symphony, but that doesn't make me wish to welcome thewm into the fold of folk music. "Good" and "folk" are not synonyms, surely?