In 1966, the Seattle Folklore Society was formed. They let it be known right off that they would be sponsoring performances only by traditional singers and musicians—people who had grown up in rural America and had learned the songs they sing from their toothless grandmothers. They also let it be known that they were not interested in urban-born singers such as myself or Bob Nelson or Walt Robertson or anyone else who had learned the songs they sang mostly from songbooks, records, or each other.

My, how times have changed.

In 2006, the son of two well-known and highly respected folklorists and song collectors was doing a West Coast tour and contacted the Seattle Folklore Society to see if he could do a concert under their aegis. They asked him about what songs he had written. He responded that he did not write songs, he sang traditional folk songs that his parents had collected. The SFS answered him, saying, sorry, but if he didn't write his own songs, they would not be interested.

This was when Stewart Hendrickson, Bob Nelson, and I decided to resurrect the long-defunct Pacific Northwest Folklore Society (the reason the PNWFS was defunct after a most auspicious beginning is a story much too long to go into here). The first event of the newly reformed PNWFS was to sponsor this person's concert.

The sudden appearance—or reappearance—of another folklore society in the area got the attention of the Powers That Be at the SFS. In a friendly conversation, it was made plain that we have no intention of being confrontational or competitive with the SFS. But if the SFS does not want to sponsor singers of traditional songs (traditional in the historical sense), then we will. On that basis, it isn't a matter of competing organizations, it's "division of labor."

In fact, as a result, I understand that there is a re-evaluation of policies, and there has been quite an interesting flurry of activity within recent months. A local coffee emporium is in the process of converting itself to a 1950s-60s style "coffeehouse" with folk (traditional) music as regular entertainment, and the Everett (city forty-five minutes' drive north of Seattle) Public Library is sponsoring a series of folk concerts. More to come.

I have nothing at all against singer-songwriters, and am fully aware that some (not all, but some) are very much in the tradition of the troubadours, bards, and minstrels of previous times, from whom many of the traditional songs we sing today came. One of my favorite singer-songwriters is Gordon Bok, who is so steeped in traditional material that the songs he writes are almost indistinguishable from traditional songs. Tom Paxton, Townes Van Zandt, several others, yes.

Indeed, I just discovered that there is a young woman living in the same apartment building where I live who is a singer-songwriter. We just became acquainted within the past couple of weeks (her first CD has just been released) and she writes some very interesting songs. She tells me that she is pretty well acquainted with folk music—but the question that lingers in my mind is that I'm not totally sure what she thinks of as "folk music."

The word "folk" has become so diluted within recent years that it seems to have lost its original meaning, hence, when the term is used, it all too often requires that the user clarify what he or she is talking about.

But I do not buy the idea that anyone who writes songs and then sings them is, ipso facto, a "folk singer" and that the songs they write are automatically "folk songs." Perhaps they will be. But to say that "I just wrote this folk song last week" is like saying "I just wrote this classic last week." It may be in the "style," but whether it is ever a folk song or a classic, only time will tell. If the composer is the only person who ever sings the "folk song" or plays the "classic," then, no. Sorry, no cigar.

To call something a "folklore society" if it is not interested in traditional material, or a "folk festival" when only contemporary music is perform, displays that one does not have a very good command of the English language,

Don Firth

P. S. Style should not be confused with substance, and I think that may be one of the problems here.

If someone sings to the accompaniment of an acoustic guitar, the assumption is often made that they are a "folk singer," oftentimes regardless of the nature of the songs they sing. Unless, of course, the songs can be quickly identified as belonging to a specific genre. Suppose they are singing songs by Cole Porter? Or Neapolitan love songs? Or songs by Jacque Brel? Or songs from Broadway shows? I'm sure no one would then think of them as "folk singers." Why, then, if they are singing songs that they have written themselves, suddenly "folk singers?"

Now, if they write songs in a "folk style," one might tend to lean in the direction of calling them "folk singers." But that's still not accurate.

If one absolutely insists on calling someone who sings songs they have composed themselves, in a style usually associated with traditional (historical) folk songs, to the accompaniment of an acoustic guitar a "folk singer," I would suggest that confusion—and a great number of arguments—could be avoided by qualifying it a bit and referring to what they sing as "contemporary folk."

Anybody have any problems with that?