A fascinating debate to come across just as I find this site...

I am absolutely no expert on folk music and do not claim to be so but I love what I think of as folk music - which tends to be traditional songs - and the more I hear, the more I enjoy them a cappella or with minimal musical accompaniment.

But surely "folk" has to be a living thing - if we define it too narrowly then it cannot change or develop - each generation will inevitably come to the tradition from its own perspective and reinterpret the material according to its needs. If a singer sings "Rounding the Horn" with respect and honesty then I as a listener feel moved or transported. The music has to be performed and shared with truth, but that doesn't mean it can't be sung honourably by someone who has never rounded the horn! The relevance of the music is in the universality of its appeal - the closest I've been to Rounding the Horn was a fairly rough channel crossing when I was thirteen... but I can absolutely empathise with the hardship of the sailors of earlier times precisely through the music that has been handed down and the effect it has on my imagination.

To say that a particular song is "not folk" is similar to attempting to define what "English" is an age that is so radically reinventing it through the use of modern technology. We may despise the use of "TXT" style language or of internet speak (LOL) etc - but we can't deny their place in the language.

As has been offered earlier in this thread a song can become folk only by its "acceptance" - its "use" by singers and audience alike...

Who should define folk but folk themselves?!

Chris Baldwin