Interesting isn't it - the number of threads that glow to incandescence whenever the topic hovers around the word "folk" - or even "f*lk"? (I incline my head to Ms. Easby here).

Being a musical tart, I've spent a large part of the last 44 years playing music other than folk, in venues other than folk clubs. I started off playing in folk clubs in 1964, dipped into them on and off during those 44 years, and have remade their acquaintance over the last 2 years. So, it's very interesting to view the heated threads and arguments from the perspective of one who's spent: 7 years playing jug band/'20s dance band music; 8 years playing mainstream jazz; 12 years playing 1950s rock'n roll; and 13 years playing 60s funk'n soul & blues from New Orleans & Memphis. With time off here and there in a country band, for bad behaviour.

One common factor when playing all those different styles of music was that, on the whole, there was very little debate about what the music actually was or should be. The rock'n roll we played, for example, was from the period 1955 to 1961. End of story. We played mainly for old and young teds in drape jackets, who did fantastic jiving with their ladies - and told us in no uncertain terms if they liked the music or not. We had to know the rock'n roll and part-rockabilly repertoire - and if we strayed from it, we got told so, also in no uncertain terms! We had to play the classic riffs from some numbers - like the guitar break from "Rock Around The Clock" - but could also do a bit of improv around the beat with solos.

On the jazz front, we played anything from early Duke Ellington to Mongo Santamaria, and other musos, who often played stuff from other periods, would come and sit in, adapting their style to the occasion. Even the really modern jazzers would drop their attititude for the Sunday lunchtime session and have a blast with us now and then. Yes - there were debates in the '50s and '60s about the New Orleans jazz-loving "mouldy figs" and the "dirty boppers", but that all seems long ago.

So what's with "folk" that it generates such heat whenever a topic arises? Is it because other genres of music are much narrower, on the whole, in their focus, and folk appears to be more unfocussed and wide-ranging? Does the essential improvisatory nature of jazz transcend heated debates on whether it should be this or that? If the tenor solo works on the day, for example, who the hell cares where it comes from?

Answers, please, in a plain brown PM...