It would seem that we're back to the eternal debate of defining the music. Like philosophers debating the existance vs the non-existance of The Almighty, we are unlikely to ever reach a universally satisfactory conclusion to said debate.

That having been said, it must be pointed out that valid points have been made on either side of or current discussion.

To begin, there ARE rigid, scholarly definitions of folk music, folklore, and folk ways. The trickey bit is that how many definitions exist depends on how many ethnomusicologists you've asked recently. Each seems to have his or her own, unique definition.

Secondly, it is also true that things which are not considered "folk" at the moment may well be considered so at some point in the future. Consider the work of John roberts who is keen on perserving and recreating old Music Hall recitations. They we, when they were new, part of mainstream show buisness. Are we to consider them "not folk" because of thier origins?

Third, The point has been made that, for good or ill, folk music has become a genre. Whether it is because of commercialization of the music or due to some other cause it is a fact. Further, it has a much narrower, and much less mercurial definition than the scholarly one. It generally means any music performed exclusively on "acoustic" instruments (the word "acoustic" is in quotes because, what with so many instrument having on-board electronic these days, that definition is also a bit fluid).

Finally, non-commercial/non-performance singing is as common as it ever was. It just isn't in the same places that it used to be. It may not always be in someone's living room.
It may be a random song circle at a SCA meeting, a car-pool of people singing along with the radio, a folk music society that opens its meeting with a group sing. you have to look a bit harder for it and they're not singing a lot of the same songs that we sang back in the day, but the phenomenon is very much out there.


Stephen Lee