Tom,

I totally agree that credit should be given to the song writer or, barring that, the collector. Admittedly, that is an attitude that has been instilled in me by my mentors as I've become more serious about learning and performing the music, but I don't think that is too much to ask of anyone who loves this genre. That's just respect for the creators and history.

(As a quick aside, I've been fascinated to go back and learn where some of the songs that I heard growing up originated. I was shocked to learn that The Mermaid - which I heard as a young buck - is a variant of Child 289. I only learned who Child was within the last 18 months!)

To me, the distinction has always been between "traditional folk" (which sounds like another symantic minefield) and "contemporary folk". Clearly, there is more to it than that...but I appreciate the fact your making that distinction understable in a rational manner. I think it's starting to sink in.

Until I internalize that understanding, however, I guess I'm going to flinch when someone insists that the term "folk" be reserved for music with a specific lineage. To my mind, folk music has always meant "music of the people". Overtime, that incorporates Wellspring, revival, music hall, etc...and will eventually incorporate songs that were inspired by/influenced by that tradition. (Little "t".)

I love the term "Wellspring", however, and hereby make a motion to all 'catters that we adopt it universally as a way to end the debate. ;-)

Yours in continual learning,

Peter