Stim: . . . the music has been preserved and revived.   . . .it has created a question about whether the people who play this revived music are part of "the tradition" or whether "the tradition" ended long ago and they are merely re-creationists.

So you've experienced the music. Would you call that folk? I wouldn't, because it isn't (and perhaps never was) popular. I think music has to be popular to be folk. Regardless of the past situation with this music I understand why you can get tired of debating whether that kind of thing was or is traditional. I don't even understand the question. Is Bach traditional? In Denmark, probably a lot more than the local historical music is.

Re-creationist? What's that supposed to mean? I can imagine it would refer to music that was lost for a while, such as authentic early music. I wouldn't call that "merely" though. It serves us well, regardless of whether we want to listen to it or not. I suppose another meaning of "re-creationist" could be someone who plays the same thing twice. hehe

- Ole
       (fairly, but not too, old)