Sorry that I got in so late... Is the question the demise of folk music, or the demise of commercially viable folk music that you can make a living singing? Those are different questions. Commercially viable folk music is a little bit of an abberation. Maybe not quite an oxymoron, but at heart, folk music has always been primarily for home and community entertainment, made by people who had day jobs. In that regard, folk music has "demised" at all. It's like it always has been, except for occasional reincarnations in popular music. Nobody said folk music demised when the Weavers, Harry Belefonte and the Kingston Trio stopped producing hit records. It sounds like the question is more, "Why isn't folk music in the top 40 anymore?" Perhaps the one single thing that has made people aware of more traditional folk music has been the popularity of Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? Who would ever thought that I Am A Man Of Constant Sorrow would win an Emmy as best country song of the year? Certainly not Emry Arthur, who originally recorded it. A female friend of my 26 year old son bught the soundtrack and loves it. She'd never heard anything like it. The gospel chorus I'm in sang for an elementary school a while back, and a little black girl about 8 or 9 asked "I'm Christian, why haven't I ever heard gospel?" Folk music will never "demise." It's just that these days, for the most part, you have to sing the music out of love for it, and just the shear enjoyment of it. If you use it as a springboard to country music, rock or pop, you're not reviving it. Most people who make it as a popular music star reject the label "folk Singer." People like Steve Earle and even Bruce Springsteen are the exceptions. Steve Earle's songs are as much "folk music" as I Am A Man Of Constant Sorrow.