The problem as I see it from this side of the Atlantic--I have always detested the quaint 'this side of the pond' phrase--is that when the Folk Scare of the later 1950s and 1960s took place, music was being written as a method of putting lyrics with 'deeper' meaning into songs. People got tired of somewhat vacuous words/lyrics and that was the beginning of the end for what was loosely called pop in those days--at least the end for many folks.

We can all recall songs that 'punched the ticket' for us in various eras of music: for me the 1940s was encapsulated by such pieces as In the Mood. The '50s by Brenda Lee and later Holly. The '60s saw a split even further. People like Dylan came along and put content into songs for a seemingly disenfranchised generation. Ochs and Paxton added teeth to what became 'protest' songs, and it got labelled folk. Hell, I didn't name it folk. It got named folk.

Most acoustic songwriters I know who do not write in the so-called traditional vein hate the appellation 'folk'. It's a kiss of death, and it doesn't at all describe the music. Those who love traditional music (and there are many songs in the traditional area I love) have the right not only to do so but also the right to be proud of the tradition. However, denigrating the work of one set of songwriters does nothing but make musicians look cheap.