No one is disagreeing that the term "folk music" has widened to mean more than "traditional music". The trouble is, what it has come to mean is so nebulous that it is meaningless. Everyone has different ideas what it encompasses. For me SS's Fylde Beach offering doesn't tick any "folk" boxes, but for him it clearly does - who is to say either of us is right?

I don't think SS's claims that his music is folk because he is a folk artist, or that folk music is what is performed in folk clubs, are helpful because they are circular arguments. Also, there is stuff performed in folk clubs which quite clearly is not folk music.

The one thing we can say with confidence is that traditional music is folk music. The problem lies with the other stuff. What shared characteristics does the other stuff have which enable us to recognise it as a genre?

By definition, we're talking about composed music. It seems to depend in part on whether the composer or performer has "folk" credentials (whatever that means). So Richard Thompson is OK, Lennon/McCartney aren't.

Instrumentation is no help. Traditional folk is performed unaccompanied, with accepted "folk" instruments such as guitar or concertina, with electric or electronic instruments, or with an orchestra. Performing a traditional song in a non-folky way doesn't make it any less of a traditional song, so why should performing a composed song in a folky way necessarily make it "folk"?

And yet, having said that, a folky style of performance is one of the things which makes a song acceptable in a folk club, at least to me. But it still doesn't make it folk: "Lola" isn't a folk song just because Swan Arcade sang it in folk-style harmony in folk clubs, "Sweet Georgia Brown" isn't just because Hobson & Lees played jazz guitar duets in folk clubs.

None of this brings us any closer to a definition. The best I can do is to say that I have my own idea of what "folk" is, but I recognise that it may not be the same as yours, and it's certainly not the same as Sinister Supporter's.