Greg, if you've been reading these posts I don't think I've ever said that "anything" is folk music just to suits my "arguement". I wholeheartedly agree that traditional music by definition has a set of criteria that would exclude "authors". I would also argue that the "traditional" folk music that everyone has been missing, really isn't traditional music at all and never was. A strong case can be made that true FOLK music cannot be set down on recordings or performed at festivals. As soon as a microphone and a stage is no longer FOLK music. What is being recorded or peformed is merely an imitation of the song since it is no longer being performed in its natural setting. It is much like going to a zoo and seeing an animal in a cage as opposed to living in the wild. Folk songs and the folk process is a different discussion that shouldn't bog down this thread.

The term "folk music" has been altered in the last 50 years or so. People have become used to "watching" folk music instead of making it. Perhaps that is part of the folk process too? I do feel that circumstances of the 20th century have altered the folk process.   Technology has created a genre of music and evolved a living tradition.

Folk Festivals, at least here in the U.S., have evolved. I too would prefer to see more traditional music showcased. A combination of public acceptance and promoters needs have led to the proliferation of singer-songwriters.   I agree with you, you can't just call something folk music and it becomes folk music.   I try to look for a thread that links the music to the tradition.

The bottom line is that is merely a perception. You have your tastes, I have mine. If everyone spent less time worrying about titles and working to find ways to present what we have accepted as "traditional" music, then I think we would all be happy.