I have always thought that Joan Baez and Bob Dylan were popsingers in another suit. And Peter, Paul and Mary, and Stan Rogers, and Billy Bragg, and Woody too, in many ways. I love pop music, don't get me wrong, but folk song for me has little to do with ego or making pretty sounds, and therefore as good as they might be they are simply not part of the process because they will always be associated with their songs. Ditto Kate Rusby, because although she sings the material, she often credits herself with the rewrites and issues song books with her name at the top. It has an air of "the buck stops here", which is a killer for continuity, the whole point of the folk process. No? The Watersons rewrote most of their material and never credited themselves, and these days are often excluded from "definitive" lists of songs they had written from nothing (including on the Mudcat song list, as good as it is)...now sure, they get annoyed about it, but the pool of music is bigger and they are part of the mystery now. Kate Rusby Song Book? Hmm...play the songs of the stars with your own chord sheets? While traditional song books remain out of print? Makes me nervous. She should use her considerable resources to print the old books again. Might not make as much money, but might help the folk process survive a little longer.
It might seem a bit militant, really. I have never been able to make the distinction, draw the line, because someone worthy and good can be excluded if you do that. But why should a song immediately be called a folk song just because it has been written by someone who chooses to perform at folk events? I heard someone sing "Shiny Happy People" at a folk club the other day, and I would have rather heard Lord Randall, becuase I can hear "SHP" anywhere. I can be entertained with the "Macarena" or "Walt Whitman's Niece", but ultimately I need a bit more than that from the tradition.
pv