Glueman, I still don't believe that I'm being authoritarian by sticking to my point view that folk music is a limited and definable genre. And even if I wanted to 'throw my weight around', and dictate to people what they can and can't sing, how would I go about it?

The only feasible way that I can see is to be a folk club organiser and to run a club with a clearly defined policy. Surely, no-one could object to that - especially if it is a democratic policy agreed upon by all of the club's members. But I'm not such an organiser and, therefore, have no powers whatsoever. All of these unfounded accusations of authoritarianism are mischievous and stop the debate from moving forward.

Nevertheless, I am entitled to my point of view - no matter how unpopular it might be in some quarters. I think that this debate may well boil down to Pip Radish's assertion above (I think it was you, Pip?) that some people can't tell the difference between 'is' and 'ought'. The 1954 definition is a good guide to what folk music 'is' but some people think that it 'ought' to be something else and, hence, reject the definition. Incidentally, I have met this attitude in several other areas of my life and have come to recognise it for what it is.