Tom
I do not automatically link talent and dedication with large audiences and financial backers - I took that to be what you were saying. If I have misunderstood you I apologise - it was not intentional.
For me, this thread has to be about definition, otherwise why should people involved in music be in competition with each other, as the thread title implies.
The suggestion that there are two distinct streams of 'folk', self penned and orally transmitted (simplification - sorry), is a nonsense, and will continue to be so until those involved in the former can produce a tangible reason for its inclusion in the term. That, to me, is an uncomplicated fact.
I believe that in the past, the parasitic nature of the former in attaching itself to the term has done enormous damage to the survival of the latter as a performance art. People simply stopped going to 'folk' clubs when they found that they could sit through a whole evening without hearing a folk song. I was one of those people.
In terms of how the music is viewed outside the folk scene; until we take ourselves seriously and be clear of what our aims are, folk music will continue to be the butt of media humour, fail to get air space, and continue to be overlooked when it comes to getting grants for peformance, archiving and research. Ask John Adams how difficult it is to keep C# House going on a shoestring budget.
We've discussed in the past the mixing of copyrighted and public domain material, which is now beginning to have an adverse effect on the very healthy Irish scene.
If we don't get our act together folk music will only continue to exist on library shelves.
That, for me, is the real meaning of 'Folk vs Folk'.
Jim Carroll