I see no reason to feel guilty, seed. The discussion has been about nomenclature, not about the quality of anyone's music. I've spent some forty-five years collecting traditional songs and ballads in the field, researching their history, and, when I could afford it, releasing them on records. At the same time, my wife and I sing a slew of "contemporary" songs that we feel can stand proud and tall among the traditional ones. As Mike has pointed out above, most of the songmakers we have recorded have been strongly influenced by traditional balladry, but that merely reflects our preferences.

The problem here, to my way of thinking, is that the term "folk song" has, in present usage, come to mean a number of things that are entirely different from its classical, or academic meaning. I recall reading, many years ago, a statement made by Bruno Nettl in which he insisted that the one essential factor in defining a folk song is that it is always in a state of flux, changing as it is passed around through oral transmission. Look, for example, at the hundreds of versions of Barbara Allen. They demonstrate the process that creates what we call a folk song. This may happen quickly, over some geographic distance, or slowly, over a long period of time, but until this process has taken place (according to the established academic definition) the song in question is not truly a folk song. It may be a wonderful song, it may express our human concerns in a moving and beautiful way, as do many of our traditional songs, it may even reflect their structure and their style, but we really ought to have a different name for it. "Folk song" has already been taken.

However, I realize that our language is also in flux. Words lose their old meanings and acquire new ones. Through widespread, if erroneous, common usage, the meaning of the term "folk song" has been changing over the past several decades. Unfortunately, it has yet to settle into a commonly accepted definition. Tell a group of people that you are about to sing a "folk song," and you may find yourself facing as many interpretations of the term as there are people in the group. When a word has so many different meanings to so many people, it is, for all practical purposes, meaningless. And 'tis there that we find the rub.

Joel: the reaction to your use of "folksong" in describing your songs demonstrates the problem quite clearly. Count all the varying definitions offered in this thread. If a whole paragraph is necessary to explain what one means every time one uses a particular word, I think that word is no longer useful as a communicative tool. And I think that this entire discussion has been stimulated by just that problem, and has had nothing to do with the quality of your songs.

Moonchild: The FSGW is far from elitist! Many of them write songs and sing them in their song-swaps to the delight of their peers. (Ask Carly and Dean to sing their splendid parody "I'd Falsify Taxes with You" when you meet them at the Getaway.) This is a wonderful group of people who love to sing together. They may distinguish between a "folk song" and a "contemporary song," but they sing the good ones of both genres with skill and genuine enthusiasm. You'll love 'em!

Sandy (resident folk fogey)