Folk is different wherever you go, so I have problems joining this debate.

Then I looked at some of the BS threads, and some of the threads here on "what is folk?" Many of the regular contributors come over as being elitist, although not with any reason to be so...

My mate won't touch a pint unless it is "real ale." I prefer my beer less gassy and cold too, and love many brews that he raves over. However, I also call huge tankers of mass produced stuff "beer" as that is the word to describe it. When he says that isn't beer, I point out that internationally, Coors / Bud etc outsells "Firkin Old Growler" / whatever, by about a million to one each and every day, so at the risk of sounding pedantic, I reckon they have a right to the word if that is the word they use to describe their brew. Don't say I drink it much, but it is beer all the same.

Folk is similar. I sometimes state on these threads that if it played in a folk club, I reckon it stands a chance of being folk. At least by my definition. Others then rattle on about a 1954 interpretation. Huh, no. My interpretation is the real one! At least it is for me, same as yours is for you. So the elitist brigade are on a non starter because the word folk itself is subjective.

In fact, using my beer analogy, I notice in iTunes, when I buy an album, itunes has already inserted a genre. Well, as huge corporations own the world, perhaps Dick Gaughan is "celtic" on one album but "folk" on another? I smile at the thought of Dick being classified by the huge corporations he moans about...

Circular argument in my opinion, so this thread might not resolve itself.