Richard:

"I think that treating it as "entertainment" for "punters" does great disrespect to the music"

Well I don't. Not in the least, so we'll have to agree to differ on that. I personally believe that treating music as "entertainment" (WHEN it's appropriate to do so) merely reduces the risk of being self-indulgent, and therefore disrespectful to the music. That's all. Maybe you have to have been there to understand.

Jim:

"It may be accepted by you Tom, but certainly not commonly so - go and look at the number of books with 'folk' in the title and try to square that particular circle. We've been here before, but your definition/non-definition exists only in your head and in those of your fellow singer-songwriters - it certainly is not 'common' and has no substance, therefore, no validity outside of your small puddle."

The books were, I presume, written a while ago. The Grammy nominations, the iTunes list of folk artists, the guest list at most folk festivals, the CDs listed under folk in HMV, and many other markers all suggest that NOW it is only a relatively small group of die-hards (I could have put 'puddle' but I'm a nice person ;-) who have it the other way about.

I have no idea what your quote about leeches and Guantanamo Bay may refer to, but I doubt I used either word. If I did I'm reasonably confident that I didn't mean anything like what I think you're saying above. (Sorry, it doesn't makes sense to me from either perspective).

You are completely wrong when you suggest that earning a living at something means that it cannot also be a calling (and a life-long one at that). Staggeringly wrong. But I know you'll never even try to understand, so I won't even try to explain. As with Richard, we shall have to agree to differ.

Tom