At the risk of diverging from the topic, and preparing to be in a minority, I must say that I am a lot happier with including military brass band music in English (or even British in the widest possible sense) folk than I am with including blues - a distinctly US form.

However, when I started this thread I wasn't really looking for categorising Eliza as such - she's folk in my book, if she's pop as well then good for her. I just found it amusing that she could even be considered as being "outside the fold" and wondered about the terms in which such a judgement could be made. What makes a performer "pop" rather than "folk" - and in this sense other than "pop" as a simple shortening of "popular". I'll repeat the reviwer's comments: "a slick and engaging performer...challenged purists...cosmopolitan entertainer...regales us with anecdotes and sings in a slightly husky voice...." Is this really what the outside world expects NOT to see in a folk performer?

I might accept that some folk performers are less than cosmopolitan - but then I happen to like Border Ballads. Others may not challenge the purists - though find me a purist who can't be challenged by the most trivial "offence". Others are not that slick.... does all this add up to a sticker on the forehead?