Indeed, John. I had already asked pretty much the same question almost a week ago ---

Date: 30 Sep 14 - 12:40 PM
But here's what I really don't get:-----
Why is it so important to all these singer-songwriters/contemp-song-performers, whatevers -- you know who & what I mean -- that their music should be known by the same name as a genre which has had a precise and universally recognised designation since the term "folklore" was coined by William Thoms in 1846? Why is it such a big deal to them that we must all agree that the name "folk" is appropriate for their creations & performances, when these are different both in origin & in nature from that covered by Thoms's useful term? Why do they get so hysterical and hot-under-the-collar if anyone suggests that communication of one's precise meaning might be enhanced if another term might be found for the music that they delight in, rather than any objection being raised to their impudent arrogation of a term which had already been in recognised usage for over a century for another set of people's favoured form?
Really beats me why they get so distressed and heated and abusive about it. And then, as often as not, go on in agressive, truculent tone, as if its their term, at that, and we are the ones trying to pinch it from them: "effrontery and arrogance of every traddie fundamentalist" a typical denunciation of theirs -- I ask you! ≈M≈

without in the interim having got a real answer; just evasions, if even that. Let's see if your having put it also will achieve any better results.

Held breath, anybody?

≈M≈