Santa wrote: "I think there is much more to English folk music than the political activism, but it is never going to be popular and accepted (whatever that exactly means) until it deals with popular issues in a popular manner. At the moment, this does not include leftwing diatribes, morris dancing, or bewailing your sad lovelife behind an acoustic guitar. English folk music has gone from a curiosity to a popular movement to an object of public ridicule".

But what do people actually want out of any kind of music in the first place these days? If you look around at music that is commercially popular - not necessarily a guarantee of quality but some kind of indicator about what people are interested in - you'll see that most people aren't really interested in things that make them think too much. I don't think people, generally, actually want to deal with popular issues, at least not on any kind regular basis.

I think most people now see music as purely a backdrop for getting wasted and escaping from real-life rather than as a lens or a mirror for it. 'Boy meets girl' still tends to be lyric du jour, whether it's the handsome shepherd who espies a bonny maid or a ho who likes the way I roll (or something).

I think any kind of music - perhaps barring some forms of rap - that deals with issues or politics is always going to be a niche market.

It's also a bit odd to see a phrase like "your sad lovelife behind an acoustic guitar" given the massive success over people like James Blunt and David Gray over the last couple of years. I think generally people in general don't have that much of a beef with 'acoustica' - and, if anything, I think the majority of people actually define that as being 'folk' anyway. Maybe not Mikey Mudcat's view, but perhaps Joe Public's view.