Don, I agree with you - but the issue in this discussion has not been quality. Naturally there is a lot of "bad" songs out there.   There were also traditional folk songs that were deemed "unworthy" by collectors - sometimes for reasons other than quality. I'm also sure there were millions of songs that never made it through the oral tradition because of quality and a short shelf life.

When you say that Gordon Bok is steeped in traditional material, I do agree with you.   But don't you think that the traditional material that Gordon is steeped in represents a regional and cultural preference that he himself was steeped in? I'm not hearing much flavor of Appalachian folk in his music.

The point is, contemporary singer-songwriters are writing in styles that are reflective of their own community - a community that has been evolving and influenced by the modern era and all that comes with it. There is probably a reason why you can hear a similarity in the music of a singer-songwriter from Texas and one from New York City.   It is probably more honest than the music that was created during the so-called folk revival. Instead of mimicking someone elses roots, contemporary singer-songwriters are writing from the community that they know. Perhaps that is why it sounds so different.

You can call their music "link sausages", but that is truly an unfair stereotype. I'd rather hear a singer-songwriter churn out honest songs as they hone their craft rather then hear someone mimic a style or regionality that has nothing to do with their experience.

There is a reason that the Carter Family does not sound like the Copper Family, and that is an honesty.   For someone from Brooklyn to sound like either is not a honest effort, but rather an effort in impersonation.