Is it not simply the case that the term 'folk music' has changed and evolved over time, much in the same way as the term 'rock music' has? In my opinion, both terms have become so broad and inclusive as to lose any tangible meaning. If you describe a particular performer to me as a folk singer, in 2007 I have no idea what that means. In order for me to get a rough idea what they sound like, you'd have to be more specific: a singer of (insert country/region) tradtional music; an acoustic rock singer songwriter; an acid folk collective; a folk rock band; and so on and so forth.

Meanwhile, outside of the world of folk clubs, folk forums etc, there are plenty of people playing and listening to music they would define as folk music but would not be recognised as such by many of the users of forums like this, including those who slag off traditional music as too narrow a genre. In Manchester, nights like the Red Deer Club, Hedge and others, featuring largely unsigned, local, acoustic acts are getting decent crowds, most of whom have little crossover with the established folk scene. Personally I think this is great. I also don't believe this threatens traditional music in any way - though it may threaten some peoples' conceptions of 'folk music'...

Never liked that Louis Armstrong quote, though... the logic of it means that we'd have to accept that the Spice Girls and Status Quo are folk bands.

Cheers

Nigel