Hi Folks,

In the long run, definitions tend to change as our culture evolves - that's the wonder of language.   Meanwhile, in the here and now, all definitions are debatable. The debate running through this thread has been quite interesting, but we still seem to be a long way from a consensus.

Perhaps instead of asking "is this or that definition right or wrong?" we might do better to ask, "is it helpful or unhelpful? - does it clarify or confuse our understanding of the the thing we're trying to define?"

I think that Mikefule's point about context does clarify the discussion - but it might work even better with a further refinement. Suppose we try opening up a little more space between the concepts of "folk song", "folk singer" and "folk singing"?

With folk singing, it's relatively straightforward. If we sing for fun, let's call it folk singing - if we sing for money, let's call it show business - whatever the kind of songs being sung.

If we call something a folk song (define it how you will), then let's accept that it remains a folk song, even when being sung in a showbiz context.

And finally, let's agree that folk singers (define them as you wish) are doing folk singing when they sing non-commercially within their own community - but accept that when they get paid for singing to an audience, they have moved (temporarily) into show business.

This would not solve all our definitional problems - but it might help us to see more clearly which problem it is we are trying to solve.

Wassail!