MANY MANY thanks to all of you that have contributed to this thread so far. When I started this thread I had no idea what response I would get and in my innocence and some naivity I was not aware that this is such a hotly debated subject.

It is just something that has plagued my brain cells for a long time now!

Your contributions have been magnificent. I now appreciate that the question I posted has so many diverse and conflicting views in response that if I was a student of the history of folk music I would probably be in a position right now to write a full thesis thanks to all your intelligent and well considered contributions and references.

It is obviously a big subject to wrestle with and like many of you I hate to shoe-horn/put in boxes, definitions of different music styles. It always seems to get very messy and subjective so you end up chasing your tail.

If I may however, I would like to express some of my thoughts and conclusions which are a direct result of your collective contributions. Please feel free to shoot them down at will!

1.When I started this thread I intended to raise a question and not to challenge your attitudes.

2.I do not believe that "TRADITIONAL" Folk Music means that the original authors must be both unknown and dead or out of copyright. This is just symptomatic of the age when they were spawned without todays advantage of instant recording and down loading via CD/DVD and internet etc.
Levels of education,literacy and the ability to communicate to the masses was very poor so only the most "popular" and therefore handed down songs survived. These songs survived because they were 'catchy', had a strong CHORUS and expressed shared and meaningful feelings and emotions of the time. So it is a 'filtering' process.

3.I do also think that "Tradition" is a process of evolution and is not dead. It really is a stream of continuous motion and is timeless. Many of todays "contemporary singers/Traditional-style singers and composers" will create the TRADITIONAL Folk Music of the future. Just because something is "New" does not mean it is not of value. They will live on to form part of the "tradition" for generations to follow.

The definition of 'traditional' is indeed starting to creak. It is time for a re-think. Why do we love and embrace the past so much yet feel unwilling to equally embrace the present and the future?
We owe it to our desendents to express the here and now with our heart felt emotions and observations with less of the seemingly heart felt need to cling,limpit-like, to comfort-inducing images of the past - e.g rather sad, in my view, churning out songs about fishermen,plough boys,milk maids, farmers, hunters,old battles,fair maidens,harvesting,love lost and love gained etc.

We always seem to give value to "traditional" and see contemporary as cheap. This is indeed a time warp that needs to be finally shot dead and terminated. Our emotions and feelings are just as relevant today as they were 300 years ago.
Otherwise we create a black hole and our contempory age gets sucked into oblivion.

Nuff said and many thanks for all your very valuable and very well considered input. Please keep it coming if I haven't already turned you off!