Surely Sedayne, you mean "form" not "content". I would not have thought your comments on Newcastle likely to be right, at least not consistently with yoru context, and perhaps you should evidence them if you see it as relevant to this thread.

But the idea of what is acceptable in a singaround or session is little if anything to do with whether something is "folk".

As for you Al, you really are a wind-up. "Folk" is nothing to do with whether you sing through your nose (I admit it, I do) and I have heard some good traditional singers plainly not middle class also singing through their noses - and being wholly exciting in the traditional music they made while doing so.

I was listening to Tom Paxton on the wireless this morning (on some chat programme) and he was talking of "his family" coming from the Scottish lowlands and there being a sense of "coming home" when he went there. That is where folk (1954) comes from - from the sense of ones roots. If it is sense for African-Americans to discover thier roots in Africa, for Irish-Americans to visit their culture in Ireland, etc etc, so may we all revisit our roots and rediscover our heritages in folk (1954) music.

And, moreover, (sorry, is that talking funny? - tough shit, get over yourself) it is complete hogwash to pretend that 1954 definition "folk (not quite the same as trad - the 1954 defintion admits the osmosis of pop ephemera into "folk" - or if you prefer "the living tradition") enjoys unmerited prestige - mostly it gets the unmerited insults of those who think we should forget our past and live, like the grasshopper, only in the present - the mindless insults of the uneducated and ineducable " 'ere, 'ee talks funny" Well listen to yourself, chavvy. It most certainly does not get disporportionately large media exposure. Once again the barrow boys and girls are happy to bury what they do not understand and make no effort to understand.

We have a heritage. It is proper to study it and to be proud of it. It is better still to enjoy it as well.

The 1954'ers do not deny others in any way the freedom to do what they wish. It is the evolutioners who will try to breed out the last of the old ways, as the Australians did when they split up aboriginal families, who will let the lst marsupial wolf die, who will put the old songs at best on reservations as the American settlers did to the native Americans.

But, for the purposes of this thread, having a meaning for teh word "folk" allows you to answer the question "Why should we sing folk at all". My answer is miles above.

I don't deny you your music, WLD, I greatly admire your abilities - but what is the answer to the question? If "folk" is what the working class oik (your words, not mine) is singing, it needs no support. Why "should" we sing it?

And if that is "folk" what are things like "Famous Flower of Serving Men" "teh Wild Boar" "Henry the Poacher" "Ratcliffe Highway" "Gentlemen of High Renown" etc etc? If you say that folk is only what is widely sung, what are they?