CS: Perhaps the folk word would never have become so vague and general if it hadn't have been the ambition of early revivalists to 'add to the tradition' with new songs.

Good point - and I can understand there being a certain amount of no really it is folk it's just a different kind of folk... when the "it" in question was by Cyril Tawney or Stan Rogers or Lal Waterson. It's just the way that the frontier of folk - or mumble-folk - keeps creeping outward that bugs me: something that sounds a bit like folk, only different gets labelled as 'folk', then something that sounds a bit like (something that sounds a bit like folk, only different) only different, then...