Shimrod, Les simply subscribes to a different interpretation of the meaning of the world "folk", and lord knows there are enough of those around. Don't be exasperated at this, to the point of calling him responsible for the possibility of the term "folk" being devalued. His opinion simply differs with yours, and no deeper meaning than that exists or should be read into it. It's like me and my wife calling the hue "aqua", "green and "blue" respectively. I still love her, reasoning that she can't help being wrong :-) But back to the definitions of folk, and the likelihood of the term "folk" being devalued - and let's leave "traditional" out of this for now. Witticisms and horse-talk apart, I can discern from this thread alone the following definitions, each with its subscribers and advocates:

a) A "folk song" must first undergo the folk process, and can only become "folk" through this. This gives rise to two options:
   a1) The folk process is dead, and so no more folk songs can be ever created; this virtually equates "folk" with "traditional" (not 100%, I know)
   a2) The folk process is on-going, and so songs written today can only become "folk songs" with the passage of time, with hindsight so to speak

b) A "folk song" must have "anon" composer (again, this almost equates "folk" with "traditional")

c) A song is "folk" because a recognised "folk singer" sings it

d) A song is "folk" because it is written in a certain musical "style" commonly accepted as giving rise to "folk music".

Shimrod, I believe you subscribe to either a1) or a2) above, and you worry that the anti-Christ anti-intellectuals will sully and devalue the term.

But can you see the incongruity of using that very term "anti-intellectuals" as being the danger to "folk", whose original definition (as in, centuries ago) is "of the people"?

Me, I like to go back to the origins of things - and the definitions above, from a) to d), are hardly more than 50 years old. Based on the original meaning of the world "folk" (outside the world of music) I would like to offer an alternative view, one that might sound a little like d), but isn't:

e) Consider that there is such a thing as a "folk ethos". This is like saying "style", but I am going well beyond the external cosmetics of type of tune or instrumentation, modal or bipedal scales, dialect or antiquity of language employed, plugged or unplugged, acoustic or whatever. It does however point towards a number of things:
   - A thematic relevance to the world and society at the time when it is written (i.e. for a new song, relevance to today), except when specifically setting out to describe historical events
   - An equivalent linguistic relevance to the same period
   - An emphasis on story telling or image-painting
   - Most important: A viewpoint belonging to the "masses" (as opposed to aristocracy, oligarchy etc)

Note that I said nothing about the music; that is partly to further emphasise the importance of lyrics (which puts the majority of pop and rock outside the scope); and partly to enable the freedom to embrace different musical styles, both chronologically and geographically, as indeed the people have done throughout the ages. (I know that some will immediately pipe up "how does this folk ethos apply to tunes, then?", and I have to own up that I don't know; I am more familiar with song than with pure music, but perhaps those with a tunes-only bend can offer some equivalent).

This would then lead us to term some contemporary songs as "folk" in the sense of "written with a folk ethos"; and suddenly, Jez Lowe becomes acceptable as "folk music", as indeed do all the examples that Les quoted above. Just as I we say that certain songs are written "in the tradition", without confusing them with "traditional" - and if we do, what the heck, it just shows how well they were written "in the tradition".

I would personally prefer the academics to use a "folk ethos"-based definition of "folk" rather than the current chronologically-, authorship- and technology-based ones, which I find to be too dry. But that is my view. You may not like it, and that is fine - but call no exorcists, this not the devil speaking.