If it doesn't matter what music is called, why get mad if somebody says somebody isn't folk?

Good point. I don't think anyone here's really indifferent to definitions. Some people seem to be saying "don't define music" but meaning "don't define the music I like as not being folk".

I can see both sides, I have to confess. I got into folk in the first place through Steeleye Span in one of their noisier periods, so I completely understand kids watching Seth Lakeman shredding his bow and thinking this is how folk ought to be. (Although I'm sure Peter Knight used to play actual tunes. Tsk, kids these days...) Even when I got into performing (much more recently) I only had a very hazy idea of which bits of my repertoire were echt Trad and which came from earlier folkies; one of the first songs I did in public was The Snows, which I introduced as an old song by Bert Jansch*. And when I started writing and singing my own stuff, well, that was when I felt like I was getting somewhere with this folk music lark. Most of the younger performers I hear seem to think the same way - 'singer-songwriter' is the goal, the traditional repertoire is just another source of cover versions.

But I've moved, just within the last few years, to a much greater appreciation of traditional songs and tunes. The thing is, it's very largely thanks to my exposure to a handful of performers, floor as well as pro, all of whom I've seen at the local club (in between the singer-songwriters). I think it's tremendously important that more people get that opportunity - and the more 'folk' becomes synonymous with 'someone playing an acoustic guitar', the less likely that is to happen. Unless we can collectively do a Tom Bliss - settle on 'traditional' for what we do and leave 'folk' to the acoustic-contemporary crowd. (A fine and talented crowd - I'm not dismissing that kind of music, I still write it myself from time to time. But traditional music is different.)


*I know, I know, I know. If your toes are curling think what mine are doing.