I am sorry to have to disagree with Eliza Carthy, since I am consistently in awe of her musicianship and her interpretation and furtherance of traditional (narrow meaning) and folk (slightly wider meaning) music. However, if the expression "folk" is not to be anomalous, being used in one sense of music and in another sense of other arts and means of expression, then it s only the 1954 defintionthat makes sense (at least no-one yet has put forward any other that convinces).

The 1954 definition does permit accretions to the body of folk music, by adoption and modification, and it does not preclude interpretation (or amplification).

It is not a matter of liking. As I said, I could quite like some of Seth Lakeman's stuff (but I quite like some Bob Marley, some ragga and quite a few metal and death metal and rock bands, not to mention a whole pile of cock rock and what we used to call R&B back in the 60s). However, it isn't only shopkeepers who need definitions. All of us who need connections to our roots need to know what those roots are.

The oddity is that in many settings that is considered a given. It was even in tonight's re-run of "Star Trek, the next generation" - Worff's adoptive parents recalling their efforts to ensure his connection with his heritage. It was a given of the early Afro-American consciousness raising. Yet for some reason it seems to be anathema for many in the context of English folk music.

Ho hum.