I love the Beatles dearly, and consider them folk music in many non-musical ways. But if you can't hear the difference between an old traditional melody and a Beatles melody, you need to clean out your ears.

My impression of what Bill D and Art are getting at when they say that tradtional is different than modern composed music is that it sounds different. And they're right. And it doesn't mean the Beatles weren't great and didn't have a huge impact on the consciousness of a generation. It doesn't mean that in the sense of "folk music is the music the folk play" that they are not folk music -- but then so is heavy metal, rap, and baroque, so why have labels at all? And it doesn't mean folks shouldn't play Beatles music at folk clubs -- unless the folk club wants to have all traditional music, which really does sound different.

There are many modern songwriters who are (or were when they were alive) so immersed in traditional music that they managed to write music that sounds like traditional music. For this reason, some of their songs have been generally accepted by traditional music enthusiasts. It doesn't mean these songs really are traditional in a historic.musicoly sense. It just means they sound like folk music, so folks who want to hear an evening of folk music don't mind when they are included. It also doesn't mean that all recently written songs that are liked by a lot of folkies are folk music.

Its all about what it sounds like. I play music by the Beatles a lot, and sometimes even in folky settings, but I don't ever pretend that it's folk music. It just doesn't sound like folk music.

John Peekstok