Jim, my response was somewhat facetious (did you see the little smiley face at the end?)

You may feel that folk is still a very specific word describing very specific musics and processes. I agree that in the rarified environment of certain internet discussion groups, organisations such as EFDSS, and amongst the friends within my own folk community, we all more or less agree a definition. No problem.


"Why should we abandon a word that has had a valid use since 1846 and is still very much in currency in its proper sense? - Apparently to include a handful of square pegs (who don't even like folk music and find it overlong and boring) into our particular round hole - sorry Ruth - I found Kung Fu Panda more convincing."

The problem is that when you go beyond those groups into the wider world, suddenly the parameters all change. The definition widens beyond any usefulness or meaning. There is nothing that we can do about this, but if we all hope to be understood by people in the "real world", outside of these rarified communities, it's something we have to acknowledge. Amongst all the people using the F word, we are, in fact, the handful, Jim. We're the square pegs.

If you only ever want to talk to other scholars and hardcore enthusiasts, that's fine. But ifyou're interested in the dissemination of traditional culture to a wider, more mainstream audience, I reckon it's kind of important that we understand how the F word is being used, perceived and commodified out there.