"Whether or not SL's music is folk or not boils down to a matter of opinion and in my world everyone is entitled to that opinion. So if you like the music, then thats great, if you dont like it say so and then shut the f..k up and dont try to promote those views over those of other people by using academic or "rustic" definitions of what folk music might or might not be."

I've just cut and pasted this from higher up the thread because I think that it embodies many of the problems that those of us who have informed opinions about what folk music is and isn't, and think that definitions are important, face. It starts reasonably enough - few of us would disagree that "everyone is entitled to their opinion", but then it goes on to suggest that those of us who have an opinion based on background knowledge and "academic" definitions (don't know what a ""rustic"" defintion is) should "shut the f..k" up and not try to "promote those views over those of other people". This suggests to me that only the wilfully ignorant are entitled to an opinion ... possibly ...? If so this is hardly a temperate or reasonable view - presumably the author burns books in his/her spare time (?)

In addition just because I believe that something isn't folk music doesn't mean that I don't like it (weary sigh!!) or even disapprove of it. And even if I don't think it's folk music AND I don't like it there's nothing I can do about it EXCEPT express my opinion which (I insist) I AM entitled to do. If that upsets wilfully ignorant people then so be it (that is one of my missions in life, after all!).