No doubt an entertaining anecdote, Al: you are always a good entertainer. But I don't see any hassle or criticism of Harper in that tale.

Further, there is nothing wrong with a song being long. What is wrong is being long and boring, and they are not synonyms. Some of the contemporary heroes could drone for their country of preference, Dylan being, IMHO, one of the worst offenders, another "poet" who used the song form (I can't call his guitar playing or singing "music") to widen his audience. Part of the art of singing a long song is to form your delivery so as to build the dramatic tension. Both Martin Carthy and Brian Peters can do this. It applies to different forms of music too. It also applies to for example the novel.

There may be crap singers of traditional songs, but there are plenty of crap singers of contemporary songs too (go to any open mic night).




The supposition behind this thread is a cumulation of two errors. First, it assumes that an innovative treatment and delivery of a folk song means that it is no longer a folk song. That is precisely 180 degrees out of phase with the 1954 definition that the OP blames as being the root of so much evil. It seems to coincide with Sweeney's latest view which I think I can summarise is now "if it sounds folky it's folk" - a curious proposition because then his neologisms are what prevent him being folk, rather than any preferences of a mythical "folk police".

Second it assumes that anyone excludes things that are "not folk" from folk clubs or from opportunities of performance to folk audiences. Not only does that largely not happen but also any performer wanting to get rich would be mad to pursue such a narrowing of purchaser base.