SS, what you're describing is a philosophy, not a definition. You're celebrating that ordinary people are coming together to make music. I agree, that's worth celebrating. However, according to you, when people get together to make music, of whatever origin, that's folk.

Maybe Folk itself is a philosophy? A way of life, a way of being. Maybe we should be a bit more specific here and say that Folk Music is music done by Folkies; and if that includes the late great Matt Armour and company doing When The Saints Go Marching In and Jim Eldon's inspired reconstruction of The Tide is High then so much the better. It might also include a lot of other things too, but in the end this is a music which defines its own parameters according to no other set of criteria other than what Folkies are moved to do in the name of Folk. If this argument is somehow circular then so be it; and let the circle be unbroken.

It's a point of view, but I don't think it's one that many would share, and neither does it reflect everyday language or experience.

It reflects 35 years of experience of Folk; I'm sure I'm not alone in that. Go to any cub or festival; even listen to Mike Harding's radio show; look through the Folk section of your local HMV; look through the threads on Mudcat...

There are recognisable genres of music, although they many not be easy to define, and playing them out of their usual context doesn't alter that. A jazz piece is still jazz, whether it's played in a folk club or a jazz club, just as Bach is still Bach, or hip-hop is still hip-hop, wherever it's played.

A jazz piece doesn't stop being jazz just because it's played in a folk context no more than a Fish Crate from Castletownbere stops becoming a Fish Crate because it's adrift on the Irish Sea. It is Folk; it is Flotsam.

Similarly, a folk song is still a folk song whether it's played in a jazz club or a classical concert hall. You cannot define "folk", or anything else, simply by its context.

I'd say that was true of a Traditional Folk Song, but really a Folk Song only exists in a Folk Context; take it out of that context and it invariably becomes something else. Like when the Fish Crate is returned to Castletownbere Fisherman's Co-op.

The "folk club" is not as unique or special as we like to think. Everywhere, amateur musicians are coming together to make music, in choirs, orchestras, jazz clubs, and countless other venues. They're all sharing the same experience of making music. To label what they're doing as "folk" because it's done by folk is actually quite patronising.

It is the Folkies who call these places Folk Clubs, or Folk Festivals, or Folk whatever; it is the Folkies who do these things in the name of Folk. And yes, the Folkies do not have a monopoly on amateurism (in the best possible sense of a word that all too often is used derisively). However, a Jazz Club is not a Folk Club, although there are crossovers, such as when the same individual attends both. One night he'll have his Folk Hat on, the other his Jazz Hat. But it's only when he does Jazz with his Folk Hat on that Jazz is Folk. Of course the question must then be asked would he do Folk with his Jazz Hat on? Well, I do occasionally - I'll sing a Traditional Folk Song in the context of a performance of Free Improvisation (call that Jazz? it's not even fecking music!), but to me it's all Folk Music anyway because - guess what? I never heard no horse sing a song!. And I really, really, really, deeply, honestly, sincerely, believe that to be true. To me, the ultimate Folk Context is Planet Earth, but I'm not about to bring that into the discussion, just let you know that ultimately, that's where I'm coming from. Everything I do is Folk - from THIS to THIS to even THIS.      

What you are really saying is that you have something which calls itself a "folk club" at which all and any kinds of music are welcome..

No - what I am saying is that all Folk Clubs and festivals are like this. The Folk Club in Fleetwood is just one example.

That's great.

Not always, but such is life.

I won't even argue with you over whether it should be called a "folk club". But to call everything that is played there, or which might be played there, "folk music" doesn't help us towards a definition of "folk" in its modern usage which is what I had understood to be your question. The club could be called something quite different, the music would remain the same.

I disagree. Folk in its modern usage is almost entirely about context. And would the music remain the same? Certainly the ethos would change - the weight of meaning which is carried by the term Folk Club which ensures we get a regular rosta of visiting floor singers bringing everything from self-penned ukulele songs (in the Tradition of George Formby) to Scottish strict-tempo accordionists, to singer-song writers, to unaccompanied singers of Traditional Song, to players of Segovia on classical guitar, to blues singers. They all come because it's a Folk Club.

Why not just say that at your "folk club" people are encouraged to perform not only traditional and modern folk songs but any other genre as well? Why does it all have to be forced into the label "folk"?

The label isn't forced, it's what it is; it's out there in all its empirical diversity. This is not my personal opinion, but an observation of a reality. I may not like it any more than you do, but such is life - if life offers you Lemons, you make Lemonade.