"If they use these new fangled pencils to write down the words, it isn't folk. It must be a quill or it fails the 1854 interpretation. "
Nope, but I suppose it gives you some sort of perverse satisfaction to put up something nobody has said - which reinforces my point.
Most people never come into any form of folk and those that do no longer have a consensus of what it is.
I assume the "1854" is an attempt at satie - on second thought - maybe not!
"To Jim Carroll it's something to do with Walter Pardon. "
More distortion of what has been said - not doing too well, are you?
Your claim isn't reflected in increased audiences or popularity, whereas in Ireland, thousands of youngsters are flocking to what they know to be traditional - a lesson in that somewhere.
Which can now mean anything from Beethoven to Barbra Streisand - not very workable as a definition, doncha think?
"By the way, when you reach the impossible consensus on what folk is," the nearest thing we have to a consensus is the the current definition which has been fully researched and documented for over a century - perfectly possible to all but those who don't actually like folk music.
I've always been fascinated to learn why people who don't like or understand something feel the urge to destroy it - any ideas?
Thanks for the ray of sunshine Vic.
Jim Carroll