"Crossover," I believe, is what it's called when a recording is made in one milieu and people who follow one or more other types of music find it appealing. What it usually means is that the performer has to lower his or her normal standards.

I remember years ago driving around in a car all day visiting a colleagues' accounts. She told me she liked jazz so I was ready for a day of it. It turned out she liked "lite jazz" which, to my ear, is pop music (no improvization) played by typical jazz combos. This is "crossover" stuff. Like the little old lady asked in the Wendy's commercials, "Where's the beef?" Hey, jazz is about improvization!

For me, much of the beauty of folk music comes because of its odd coupling of musical sophistication and true simplicity. The more contrived, the more complicated the rendering, the more likely the all-important story will be lost. The reasons why the old A.L. Lloyd - Ewan MacColl sea shanty recordings sound so much better than the Norman Luboff and Mitch Miller stuff is that the singers had experienced life, were relatively few in number so that they could be heard individually and there was only one harmony part. Simplicity made it great!

The only orchestral rendering of folk music I have ever cared for is Copland's American Songs (I believe that's the title). Why? The instrumentation is entirely secondary to the singing. It works!

All the best,
Dan

P.S. Sorry for not being kinder and gentler but this is about art.