It seems like this argument becomes intensified in England or Ireland because of the nature of the culture being more in touch with its roots than America, which has so many roots and diversity stemming from its citizen's immigration.

In England, Ewan and Peggy seemed to highlight this in their "folk club" where certain songs were not permitted. Here in the States, the only similar exclusionary musical attitude is in the area of bluegrass. In a way, you might say that the bluegrass contingent is in touch with a certain folk style that emanated from unaccompanied ballad singing to old time string band music. This exclusionary attitude prevails in jazz circles as well.

I've noticed that here in the States, Blues seems to be thought of as separate from American folk music which seems odd to me since it has such a strong African-American history.

The point of this is that without a historical and cultural context, folk music wouldn't exist.

That's the point of it. The stories it has to tell of the people who created it at one time in history and their feelings expressed for posterity.

This is something that is hard to emulate by current singer/songwriter standards. Although there are some great writers today who are conversant with a folk-style in their writing and composing, they can't have the history because they are not that old.
However, that said, I think, for example, that Jean Ritchie brings to her songs the historical and cultural perspective that reflects more of what a folk song is because of her association with her family and the traditional musical aspects that she inherited. John Jacob Niles, the same. Does this mean that they write "folk songs"? I'm not sure that they do, but I do believe that their material reflects a genuine understanding of what this cultural process is and their songs are closer to those traditions than the contemporary singer/songwriter who "has something to say".

Why make this distinction? Because there is something of value in a folk song that can't be measured by any other form of musical expression. It has to be appreciated in its own right for what it is and other good music shouldn't be banned or denegrated in any way.

Contemporary folklorists understand the difference between folklore and that which falls out of that category because it doesn't meet the criteria.

If we go down the road that anything is folklore, than maybe Hollywood is folklore. I don't think most of the Mudcatters would accept that.

The same with folk music.

Frank Hamilton