not bad for half a dozen whining traddys, don't you think?

Not bad at all - I'm sure there's maybe half that number passed through my hands too but what chances are of actual folk getting published or being bothered to adopt such an approach? Not very likely at all really.

We know that's the reality; the question is what you think about that reality.

Right now, sitting here listening to the newly remastered edition of Jordi Savall & Le Concert des Nations' 1993 recording of Handel's Water Music I really don't care that much to be honest. Music is so much bigger than what I think and I'm increasingly seeing it as a petty concern. The reality is so much greater than any ideal; as I said over on the other thread:

I like Folk as Flotsam* because, although a traddy, I like people - everyday people, coming to a folk club after a hard day's work in the fields (or on the cabs, the Job Centre, the hospital, the school, the building site, the ministry, or computer terminal) to sink a few pints and sing whatever they want to sing without someone telling them it isn't folk. This is where the Horse definition wins out, because it comes from the folks themselves, not the academics telling us how it ought to be, but obviously isn't.

Although a Traddy, I'm with the folks on this one; the academics can go fuck themselves. And that's not by way of 'anti-analytical primitivism' - just that the 1954 definition only works if you want it work, otherwise it's very much The Horseshit Definition and means nothing at all without being complicit in the sort of academic fantasising that gave rise to such nonsense in the first place.

Is Folk Music of the Folks or the Academics anyway? I know which I prefer.

* Folk is rather like Flotsam - just so many otherwise disparate diverse artefacts floating around in a particular context regardless of origin or eventual destination. It's all Flotsam.