I'm just amazed that everyone is so confused that they need their handheld in order to determine if they "might" enjoy something.

If you see a sign saying "jazz concert" - do you really know what you are going to hear?   You could hear anything from swing to bebop to cool jazz to fusion to hard bop to Latin jazz to Dixieland to who knows what.   Same for "rock". There are so many variations that a single word cannot describe, yet the single word encompasses a genre.

We are not comparing apples and oranges or tomatoes. What we are discussing is whether we it can be classified as a fruit or a vegetable (technically, they are all fruit - but most people think of a tomato as a vegetable - should we scold them???)

While I am hearing the Folk Altercockers of Mudcat pontificate about the importance of language and sanctity of the words "folk music", I have yet to hear specific examples of what they consider folk as there are many different traditions.   Would something Don Firth considers "folk" be considered "folk" by Jim Carroll?   

Since there are many different traditions, why is there such a reluctance to even considering that there are contemporary communties that have developed their own culture and music - influenced by their environment and common tools of their time?   Is it so hard to conceive that the person who first wrote "Barbara Allen" was doing anything different than what John Gorka does? Granted, there were no recording devices back then and the song evolved as it was passed from generation to generation and community to communuity.   Yes, there is a certain charm to realize that traditional music has gone through an oral tradition and been added to, but when you boil it down - isn't the beauty of the words and tune and the way they are delivered more important than whatever lineage can be traced?   You can breed dogs as pure as wish, but who really gives a crap when the joy is having the companionship that your best friend offers?

By a purist definition, Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Lead Belly, Bob Dylan, Phil Ochs, Si Kahn, Joe Jencks, Janis Ian, Joni Mitchell, Anne Feeney, Utah Phillips and so many others do not sing folk songs. From an academic standpoint, I understand and respect that.   However, I feel that academia does not dictate human behavior and culture. The songs created by the individuals I've noted above have played an important role in establishing a modern community and influencing culture.   I cherish their songs and feel no qualms with calling them "folk songs". They are not traditional, but they are music of the people.

You cannot box people in with rules designed by committee. Folklore is the study of culture, and culture continues to evolve. You can take a snapshot to freeze a moment in time, but you cannot expect the subject to keep the same pose forever.