"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. "

Bill, the sky is not falling. Folk does not need rescue and "trad" is standing up quite well.

40 years ago, these very discussions were going on. I'm a bit younger than all of you geezers, but one just needs to read the publications and books from the time, and speak to those who were there.   Purists had issues with Woody Guthrie in the 1940's.

I get the impression that people are trying to clarify a label as if that will make everything better.   When you say "folk" needs rescue - do you sincerely think that it is being ignored because no one can define it to your satisfaction?   Your own words, as published a few notes ago, give notice of that "gray" area - should Utah Phillips and the Berryman's be considered "folk" for a festival.

If the Berryman's are excluded from a folk festival, I would rip off the arms off of the artistic director and give them a sound thrashing with their own limbs to beat some sense into them. In your description, you create your own rating system and give percentages to determine how "folky" the artist is. You would step in less bullshit if you went rollerskating in a cow pasture.

You do not need a 3 paragraph disclaimer. If you need to have an artist give you references and footnotes about the pedigree of a songs authenticity, then folk music WOULD be in danger of boring the living crap out of any listener. You are sending up huge roadblocks to anyone who will discover the music as you and I did - simply for the joy and beauty of the song.   I don't give a rats ass if the song was written yesterday or is rooted 500 years ago - enjoy what you can while you are still around to enjoy it, don't get hungup on labels!!!!