The reason I want descriptions that mean something is so I don't waste my time.

I guess Richard started this thread as a result of the Seth Lakeman one, so I'll use him as an example. I find his stuff as dull as fuck, the same middle-of-the-road soft-pop I've been avoiding for 40 years. No way do I want to get suckered into spending an evening listening to it and I have no interest whatever in learning to play it. So whatever label is applied to it, it better not be the same one as is applied to stuff I *do* want to hear or play. I've wasted whole evenings that way. (Yes, Roslin Folk Club, this is about you).

I have pretty much given up on "folk" as a term which would identify performances or sessions I'd want to attend, and mostly it isn't an issue - Lakeman-music is more often described as "acoustic". But there are venues around which specialize in music rooted in folk tradition rather than Cole Porter, George Martin and Chet Atkins. And there isn't a widely understood description they can use any more.