I've been showing my ignorance because i didn't realise that people still wrote folk music without copyrighting it (as in the Nottingham example), not that existing songs continued to be re-writtem amd re-worked, both of which sounds like the folk music process in action. Which is WLD's point, I think.

Debates about boundaries and definitions rage in every field. (The philosopher hegel ran into problems when he appeared to think that his definition of 'Truth' was the correct one. Some people just don't recognise it when it stares them in the face :-) ).

Thanks for that, Malcolm, just te kind of thing I had in mind, even if it's just the English language variety. Perhaps googling is, once again, the way forward. No, no, there are experts here who might like being asked.

As a psychotherrapist, I'll avoid voicing an opinion about the psychologies of posters. Just to say that if you are passionate, you're more likely to be upset, and folk music is something to be passionate about.

Something music has in common with other musics, is that there isn't one reason for listening.


Amos's precise answer (tho' I'm really not happy with that + or - 1.5% onelittle bit), reminds me of the joke about the two people in a Hungarian chess cafe discussing the age of the Universe.

"No, no, it 3 billion years old."

At which a chess player nearby whips round and aske,

"What did you say?"

"That the Universe is 3 billion years old."

"Thank goodess,"says the chess player turning back to his game,

"For a moment, I thought you said 3 million !"



      Ivor