Then M.Ted, what the big audiences left was something apparently not interesting enough
to sustain them. And what is left? Is that interesting enough to bring them back?

The question is if the American audiences have gone, then why? If what is left,
is really folk music, then where is its power to sustain interest?

What has folk music really become? Is it really folk music or a caricature of itself?

Who can articulate why anyone should care with enough clarity to widen the audience?

Why should an audience get interested in this mode of expression today?

I'm just trying to follow the thread and the questions it asks.

The American audiences have dwindled for what is called folk these days. Even
the term turns some audiences off.

Sure, you can boogie to bluegrass but what does that mean in terms of clarifying
the context of folk music?

What I think is that what is called folk has lost its way. It is out of context in contemporary society. The glue that holds it together has dried up because of
the artificial stereotypes that the practitioners engender.

Here's the solution. Concert promoters have to look at a bigger picture than just
selling their "acts". They have to see folk music as participatory not passive.
They have to present it in a historical context so that audiences understand
why its important. The former audience played and sang with an understanding
that there was a connection that was larger than a personal attraction. It was a
kind of social movement which became fragmented and insular.

Many denigrated the idea that it was a social movement. Many asked, what's in it for me?
The recording companies exploited this idea. The academicians attempted to control
it by making it less accessible to the public. There was a fear that folk was too associated with political agendas. Now it has become a nostalgia trip.

There is nothing wrong with a "folk revival". It doesn't have to mean that it is a commercial success. Van Ronk's "Folk Scare" was misplaced in my opinion. Along with
the uninteresting music of the Kingston Trio, there was a gateway into the richer world of
folk music through them. Much more so with Pete Seeger. There was a time when
traditional performers stood side-by-side with the so-called "revivalists" and both
were enriched by each other's company. It was because the "revivalists" had a real interest in the music and not just after the next gig.

Bob Dylan doesn't personify folk music. He is a small part of it. The singer/songwriter
who has studied the traditional side of folk music is writing the durable songs.

M. Ted, you say it's here but I think it's a shell of its former self.

Frank