Sinister,

One wonders how much credence they still give to the 1954 definition of Folk Music - after all, 55 years is a long for an academic theory to remain unchallenged.

Yes! See, this is what has had me confused about some of your statements. Since it is such a long time, i.e. since common sense dictates that it probably would have been challenged many times, why have you preceded to characterize "academics" as if they adhered to 1950s ideas? Even if you were not aware that they had not, you'd have had reasonable doubt. I have been scratching my head, and I gave up on posting to these topics because the logic didn't make sense to me, because...The idea of "folk song" is decidedly not academic. Maybe all along you've meant "amateur academic," "crappy academic," "weekend academic," or "non-academic academic"?

I think what you really mean is "folk academic"!

I dare say, too, one might study the Folk Songs of amateur Folk Singers as practised in the Folk Clubs of Lancashire irrespective of whether or not what they're singing fits with some archaic criteria that to many here has such an absolute currency.

I dare say they have done that many times over. But the focus would be more on the cultural who? - what? - when? - why? of it, less than how it was labeled.

Gibb