Well, my hope that we could somehow avoid re-defining "folk" seems to have gone by the boards. Semantics may be confusing us. The process I outlined would not by nature discriminate between a new song by Gordon Bok and a new hit by Mariah Carey (yes, I'm cringing too on that one). A song like Steve Earle's Christmastime in Washington would seem to fit into the "folk mode" as an accepted style much better than the example I gave of Creed's Arms Wide Open. Earle's song makes a political commentary on the state of the country, criticizes the sly aloofness of the ruling classes, calls upon the spirit of Woody Guthrie. The Creed song is merely a personal confessional of giving oneself over to the power of romantic love. BUT, only time will tell if either or both songs will, by the steps of the "folk process" become a lasting part of the culture. Perhaps I should have stated "traditional process", since "folk" is such a loaded term, and since Blues, Country-Western and Jazz could be included in the process.

I think that in the last 70 years or so, since the advent of radio and recorded media, the candidates for the process have changed whether we like it or not, and songs which succeed in becoming level 4C songs may not be what we would predict or desire, in other words, not what we commonly think of as Folk Music. Are we flexible enough to accept that Who Let the Dogs Out might become as enduring as Shady Grove, whether or not we think the material has value? Won't the people, the folk if you will, make that judgement? And if they do, what better example is there of the "Folk Process" in action?