Hi Kevin, good to hear from you again! I think you've introduced - or rather revived - an idea that deserves further discussion.

'Revived?' Well, yes. Because I did suggest something similar in an article entitled 'Do We Still Need the F-Word?' which appeared in Living Tradition magazine in 2006. Quotation follows:

"Consider what happens when an informal gathering of people, most of them well acquainted with each other, launch into a song which most of them have known for some time. This activity has been going on in private homes and public houses for centuries.   We find vivid descriptions of it in the reminiscences of many people, including Flora Thompson, Bob Copper, and Richard Hoggart. And we have recordings of it from pubs in Sussex, Suffolk, Yorkshire, and various other locations.

The activity itself is clearly traditional, in one sense. But if many of the songs being sung are of recent origin and known authorship, it may be misleading to describe it as 'traditional singing'.   There are several possible alternatives.   'Vernacular singing' is technically accurate, but sounds a bit pompous. 'Community singing' is nearer the mark, but carries some awkward historical baggage along with it. So why not bite on the bullet and call it 'folk singing'?"

Seven years on, I'd still like to believe that ordinary people might one day liberate the word 'folk' from the music industry, and make it truly their own. But this outcome seems improbable while the media keeps using 'folk' as shorthand for 'indie rock band with at least one acoustic instrument, fronted by singer-songwriter seeking to transform self-pity from a hobby into a career'.

It may well be, then, that Kevin is right, and 'vernacular' is the way to go. Time will tell – though we oldies may not live long enough to find out.

Wassail!