"If you just put "folk" they assume you mean country and western and offer you a Dolly Parton album as first choice" (Musket 30 Aug 14 - 09:57 AM) Presumably you're happy that Dolly Parton's material is folk inasmuch as it has gained popular recognition as such; similar to PRS's acceptance of your own material as folk. (Do you have a website/Soundcloud/Youtube where I can listen to your folk offerings?)

"search on "contemporary folk."" (Musket 30 Aug 14 - 09:57 AM) I thought that this point had been dealt with earlier but I can't find the reference – perhaps it was in another thread. Someone stated that "you can produce something and call it a "reproduction antique" but can't just claim it as an "antique"." Following similar logic, it would be OK to call it a "contemporary folk song" but not to omit the "contemporary" part. I accept that, in the same vein, you could say that the prefix "traditional" was a requirement but I think the counterclaim would be that the word is understood in the absence of any other qualifier – in the same way that you don't, legally, have to call something a genuine antique; if the word antique is used without a qualifier the "genuine" is implied.

The points above are made, (despite taking on board Jim Carroll's point that the term is "not really used by the general public in any way other than in very general generalised references") on the basis of my view that "folk" has an academic/specialist meaning and a layman's meaning. If I'm using the layman's terms then, if it's generally called folk (including Dolly Parton, Mumfords and even my own poor attempts), it's folk - but the term then has so little meaning as to be worthless for academic/specialist discussions. Being involved in the music or entertainment business does not make one a specialist in "genuine" (see above) folk any more than being involved in one area of research (such as mediaeval British history) would make you a specialist in other, broadly related fields (such as modern American history). So what defines the specialist? Perhaps it comes back to the time when "Folk song" was first defined by those who had specifically chosen to study, collect and research such material and whether anyone since has come up with an academically rigorous alternative – or whether the only alternative is the "public acceptance" one of Amazon i-tunes.

I'm not suggesting either side in this discussion is fundamentally right or wrong, only considering the context in which the discussion is taking place and the usefulness of the term folk in those possible contexts.