*sigh* I guess *I* have not been clear. It is quite true these days that the label 'folk' means nothing. My point is that it should mean something....and 40 years ago, it did, even though it was already fraying about the edges. In any area where definitions are not absolute and monitored by a committee, such as those who control biological names, there are vague in-between gray areas.

Music is like that...we know "Barbry Allen" is folk AND trad, we know "Stardust" is not...and we debate everything from most of Utah Phillips to all of Lou and Peter Berryman. Now, when the Berrymans were here, I went and saw them, and 'mostly' enjoyed them, but if I were in charge of organizing a **Folk Festival**, I would not include them, though I might well include Utah..(well, if...). It's a subtle distinction to spell out, but it feels obvious to me that what Bruce Phillips did was ummm..72.039% 'in the tradition' compared to the Berrymans'...ummmm..41.638%..YMMV. Dylan songs, to me, vary individually from 70-80% down to 20% or so...which means Dylan is hard to place, but since (to me again) most of his are below 50%, I'd tend to NOT list him under 'folk'....

This has NOTHING to do with good or bad, but only with relevance to historical perspective and style and melodic forms and subject matter...etc...(maybe 3-4 more categories).
The point is..if I were in the promotion business, and you knew me, you could at least have a good idea of what I'd offer, and a VERY good idea of what I would not. You might not guess what I played that day, because I might have done a Berryman song...just because it was fun.

I don't suppose 'folk' will ever be rescued, and 'trad' is on slippery footing, and when people ask me what kind of music I 'mostly' listen to, I will, if I wish to be clear, always need to add a 3 paragraph disclaimer if I tell them 'folk'. 40 years ago, I didn't have to do that.