Hi Don,
It fits the theme of this thread: a folklore society turning someone down because they are folkloric. The "Folk" part of the name I can almost put up with, given our language's current use of the word "folk". But perhaps they should leave off the "lore" if they want to have a concert series of modern folk.

Having finally been forced to accept that "folk" has taken on such a broad definition that it is meaningless, I fell back on "traditional folk", only to be told that pretty much the same broad definition can be applied to the word "tradition". What do we have to do, capitalize the words, to make it clear we are referring to a particular tradition: Traditional Music? Well, that still doesn't solve the problem when confronted by a traditional musician who is a singer/songwriter, the tradition in this case being a solo singer with a guitar who writes their own songs. No shit, I've heard this. What, does the fact that string quartets traditionally have two violins, a viola and a cello mean that they're playing traditional music?

Another problem with trying to pretend like it's a particular tradition when we say Traditional Music, of course, is that it's not any one tradition. Which brings us back to 1954, and part of why I find it useful; speaking of traditional music in this context is speaking to the process which produced it, not to the specific traditions or ethnicities from which it sprang.

So, having lost "folk" and having people trying to take over "traditional", we now are losing the "lore" from a folklore society. I know it's all just a matter of semantics, but it does leave me wishing it were easier to hang a label on it when people ask me what kind of music I play. I think part of what rankles is that these changes have been made, and are being made now, by people who ought to know better. In the name of inclusiveness, they are taking away part of the identity of a whole genre of music and the people who play it.