Never heard a cow sing? Well that's a change from the usual horse. It's not true anyway, in either case, as has been pointed out numerous times - though maybe cows are generally better singers than horses. They like music too. I remember hitching one time by a field full of cows, and there were no rides, so I started playing, and they all came over and looked interested. (I didn't say they had good msuical taste...)

So to distinguish our repertoire from that of cows and horses, maybe we should just call it human music. There's Real Human Music, which is what we try to do, and there's Phony Human Music which is what gets thrown at us all the time.

And you've said it there, Mike me marrer, so I'll put it in again in case people might have missed it

-"And the majority of music journalists and media-persons will continue to dislike 'folk' whatever name we dream up for it. Because, although the 'folk' genre has always had some space for growth and innovation, it's basically about continuity and tradition. And continuity and tradition are BORING! Especially if you earn your living writing a weekly column praising everything that's shiny-new, and trashing everything that's been around longer than a few weeks."

Exactly. It's not the image that is the problem, it's the reality of the music, and that's what we like about it. You don't get rid of prejudice by changing your image. You live with it, and you overcome it. (And how many Aran sweaters has anyone seen since the Clancys? If they said weskits now, at least they'd be in touch of the true image.)