Sorry if anyone has read this, or something similar, before. I did try similar arguments on another thread. My mistake - It was the wrong one and for obvious reasons my points went un-addressed on there. Maybe I can get some answers on here?

Although the 1954 definition is not one I apply, I understand why, in the absense of any other agreed definition, it can be important. Until such a time as another group of influential people get together and re-define folk music, it is all we have. No amount of derision or insult will alter that. Only a genuine alternative would prove constructive. And one that we can all agree on at that!

Anyway, on with the questions.

Why is it that those who would 'Occupy English Folk Music' would have us believe that they are the liberal ones, moving forward with the times and not stuck in the old traditions? Yet not one person, as far as I cam tell, from the 'side of the traditionalists' has suggested that 'modern' folk music should be occupied, banned or replaced by something else. Yet those very liberal, fun-loving 'modernists' are quite happy with the concept that traditional folk music should be replaced. Presumably never to seen again.

Why on earth would anyone want to remove the choice that people have now and leave us with just one type of folk music? Why not just tollerate all types of folk music, even if you don't like it, and accept that what some people enjoy is not to your tastes? Give people the choice. Let them decide if they want to hear Child ballads sung in their traditional form, boogie on with drum and bass hornpipes or watch American Indians performing Eurovision style stage shows?

Answers on a postcard, please, to -

Obershturmfurer Cecil von Sharpe
Folk Gestapo Division
Much Boring in the Tradition
FU2

Cheers

DtG