Ron, I can tell the difference between a pop song such as the ones Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett recorded, and a grunge rock song sung by the late Kurt Cobain, or a blues as sung by Lightnin' Hopkins. I can tell the difference between an operatic aria and a Gregorian chant. I know the difference between a song written and sung by Michael Jackson and song by Cole Porter. What gives you the idea that I'm insufficiently perceptive to distinguish between a traditional song that has been around for a couple of centuries or a more recent mining song or fo'c'sle chantey and a song written by, say, Bill Stains or Townes Van Zandt?

I don't hear any arguments between knowledgeable people, such as symphony musicians, conductors, composers, and music professors when it comes to differentiating between various kinds of music. I don't think you'll hear any arguments between Daniel Barenboim, Simon Rattle, and James Levine about whether a piece of music is Baroque or late classical period.

Nor would they ask for a vote of the population as a whole. Because no matter how the vote came out, it wouldn't change the facts.

Between the records and CDs of folk music that I have on my shelves (many CDs quite recent), not to mention the songs I have learned and sung for years, and THIS (one of Melissa's songs~~click on the little arrow), I simply would not put the latter in the same category of song.

Pop? Country? Perhaps. But—it doesn't sound remotely "folk" to me. I'm not saying that it's "better" or "worse." But for any one of a number of reasons, it's one helluva stretch to say that it's a "folk song." I would not call it a folk song for the same reasons that I wouldn't call "I Did It My Way" or "I Left My Heart in San Francisco" folk songs.

Clear enough?

Don Firth