It is stupefying to me how a discussion that I intended to be lighthearted and informative could turn so nasty so quickly. I went back and re-read my comments to see if somehow I could have personally insulted anyone except myself and ... nope.

Mark, I suggest you read Blowzabella's post, for it answers your argument about "balance" perfectly. And please keep politics out of this discussion, I resent your tone.

I appreciate Ron's comments and also McGrath of Harlow. Let me add this to the discussion. When does the medium overpower the message? Once again I return to what draws me to folk music, namely the fact that it encompasses all of the human experience in a way none other can, hence the name "folk" music. The instrumentation is the background for the focus of the event. Most, although not all, folk music centers around the lyrics; be it a love ballad, a protest song, a whimsical ditty or any number of other types. Maybe my eyes are blind and my ears are deaf, but I see electrics becoming the focal point of the music, thus moving what I consider "folk" closer to what I consider "pop." That is not intended to be a put down, I just see it as a shift in genres. A poem is no better or worse than a song, but they are clearly different forms of literature. Likewise a short story and a novel. Both are to be enjoyed as they stand, and not compared/contrasted with each other.

Are there examples out there where the electrics stay in the back and are there to accent the lyrics and not overpower them? If so, stear me to the groups/performers and I would love to listen to them. I do admit to being a traditionalist, so maybe my circle of performers is just too small.

Finally, the comments about the addition of guitars and fiddles to earlier "folk" music is greatly appreciated and is something I had not considered. Thanks Ron - it gives me some ideas to chase down in the library.

humbly,

freightdawg