But that's it dammit. Tom Paxton is an excellent singer songwriter (even I like some of his songs). But it's not folk. I don't want to stop Al singing what he sings. It's good. It isn't folk, but it's good. No-one suppresses contemporary acoustic music. There are many more consumers consuming it that there are those consuming folk. But it isn't folk.

Almost all the acclaimed artists in "folk and acoustic" right now are singing songs they write, and/or putting tunes and words they write into folk songs. No barefaced or even whiskery-faced power is wielded over over English (or other British) music press, radio, or TV. Hardly any folk music is there, and hardly any gets a fraction of the promotion that music that may owe something to the tradition but is not folk gets.

Al's type of music gets it all. It gets the exposure. It gets the promotion. It gets the consumers. Even Eliza Carthy is writing her own material. Even Lal Waterson wrote her own songs.

Why the hell do you want to call it "folk" when it isn't (and as SWMBO will tell you, falling it "folk" is the kiss of death anyway)?

Nothing stops or restricts you, Al, from doing exactly what you want. You'll not be as financially disadvantaged (99% of full time musicians are very poor) as you would be if you were doing folk music. What's your problem?