The 54 definition was an attempt to describe 1) the process of mainly oral transmission, 2) the individuals who were part of that process, and 3) the material created/adapted within that process by those people.

It referred to the pre-collection, pre-recording, pre-mass media, mainly-orally-transmitted, locally-adapted, workplace/tribally-rooted 'traditional' music, aka The Tradition, (though for the purposes of this debate I'm going to give it a new and unique name The Wellspring).

They felt it was necessary to separate out The Wellspring from the rest of 'popular' music because, already in 54, the territory was becoming muddied by the advent of radio, records and the media, and the activities of collectors over the past half-century.

They used the word Folk because at that point it was still universally understood and appropriate.

But since then the meaning of the word Folk has changed. It has now become - to the vast majority - an umbrella term used to describe many genres and styles of music - including The Wellspring, but also much much more.

The problem is that a few individuals feel that this change somehow threatens The Wellspring. They want to word Folk only to point us towards to The Wellspring. For them Folksinger ONLY means a singer from and within the Wellspring - i.e. someone from before the revival or magically isolated from it by some accident of history (or perhaps mere cussedness)!

I can see why they want to do this, because we all want and need a unique word to describe the Wellspring.

But in protesting that word Folk should still only point us at the Wellspring they seem to people who don't understand the problem to be implying that somehow all this new material is being bodged into The Wellspring, which is not happening, and cannot happen by definition.

I tried to explain above, but I don't think anyone got it. So here goes again.

The Wellspring is fundamentally different to anything that comes later, because of the way the songs were learned and passed on, against the way they are learned and passed on today.

May I try the analogy of species evolution?

When creatures exist in an evironmental niche, they adapt within it, they are informed by the niche, and the niche is informed by them - and so they evolve to become unique within that niche.

If you loose that niche, you loose a key principle of evolution, the 'rules of engagement' of competition change, and species may die out or change dramatically.

Thus, when the Wellspring was in action, traditional material was developing - or so the 54 definers would have it - in a plethora of separate socialogical niches. This separation was crucial. It meant that versions were developing within the context of a localised history and sociology.

It means that still, today, we can compare a version of a song sung by miners, with the same song as it has evolved in a fishing community, and learn much in the process.

(I should add that of course the whole concept of oral-only transmission is under scrutiny today - as it now seems that the oral process was never as simple as the 54 definers would have had it, but that's not the point here).

The bull point is this: Within The Wellspring, musical niches existed, and that separation was a crucial princliple of The Wellspring.

Then along comes Mr Marconi with his electrical kit. Suddenly the niches have gone. The miners can hear the fishermen's version on the wireless, the fishermen buy records with versions from farmers, sung by professional artists.

EVERYTHING changes.

The process which built The Wellspring has gone for ever. And from this point onwards we have to view traditional songs in a different light, and ask is this version from inside or outside the Wellspring?

There's nothing wrong with talking songs out of the Wellspring and doing modern versions, but we do need to know that's that is what has happened, and view them in that context.

NOW.

Richard (forgive me if I put words in your mouth, Richard), and others who make similar statements, seem to feel that using the word Folk to describe people, material and processes which are NOT from The Wellspring, somehow threatens and diminishes that archive and its value to us.

In protesting as Richard has done, they make a good point - but it's not the one they intend.

It's way too late to 'save' the word Folk. Those who want to re-refine (not re-define) its use are on a hiding to nothing.

But what they ARE doing is pointing out yet again that we do need a new, uniquivocal definition of, and term for The Wellspring, Wellspring singers and Wellspring songs.

If we had that, it would free up the word Folk and stop all this argument.

Folksinger would mean anyone who sang folk music, including Wellspring singers (who are now mostly all dead), and Folksingers who sing Wellspring songs, which is most of us.

So why didn't I choose the word Traditional instead of Wellspring?

Most of the Wellspring songs are, of course, Traditional - but not all.

More importantly we know that non-Wellspring songs can become - in many people's opinions - Traditional, because they see the process as continuing into the revival and on to the present day. Which it does, but WITHOUT THE NICHES. And that's the crucial difference that we all need to take on board.