Oh god, this debate seems to have degenerated into semantics. We'll be having the 'what is folk?' argument next.

Is not the point that the beauty of folk music exists, and can be enjoyed, on a number of levels? On one level (I hesitate to say 'top') are the people who earn their living by performing. We all enjoy them: on CD, at concerts, at festivals and, because we are paying to hear them, we expect a certain standard, reflecting their style of performance. At the opposite level are the people who just like to sing and play and/or listen to others doing so, at clubs, in pubs, at parties or simply sitting around at home with family or friends – this allows participation by people of all levels of ability. That someone is enjoying performing it or listening to it is all that matters.

I suspect that Mathew Parris's comments were simply made for effect, based on one particular style of folk music and certainly not from an understanding of the full complexity and diversity of the genre. Admit it, we all do it. I've jokingly referred to modern jazz as 'tuneless shit' because I personally don't like it or understand it. If the truth were known, I wish I did but, hey, life's too short!

Having read a lot of the posts here, it seems to me that quite a few people are expressing opinions that are as prejudiced and narrow-minded as Mr Parris's – it's just that his were expressed in more public way.