SS, you haven't addressed my point, which is that your contextual definition tells us precisely nothing. If "folk" is what happens at a folk club, and (as you've also told us, apparently with pride) anything goes at a folk club, then what's the point of calling it anything? If exactly the same thing is taking place down the road at something which doesn't call itself a folk club, is that still "folk"?

To pick up on an earlier example, I don't believe that an operatic aria, performed half-heartedly or not, can be "folk". It is conceivable that it might be re-interpreted in a folk style, and that might make it acceptable to some folk audiences, but it still doesn't make it "folk". To draw a parallel with an earlier example of mine, Swan Arcade's version of "Lola" was acceptable to folk audiences because of the style, but that doesn't make "Lola" a folk song.

If you admit your would-be opera singer as "folk", what do you do when he turns up the following week with 20 of his mates and wants to perform "La Boheme"? You can't tell him it's not appropriate, you've already re-defined it as folk. But is that what your audience wants, or expects, to hear?

The reluctance of the folk world to draw boundaries means that it has become the remedial class for those musicians who don't play folk music but lack the talent, or more likely the inclination to work hard at their music, to be admitted into other venues. There are plenty of opportunities for amateur musicians, including brass bands, choirs, amateur orchestras and operatic societies. However most of these demand high standards of musicianship, and expect their members to work hard to achieve and maintain these. It's only the folk world which allows, in fact sometimes encourages, poor standards. It's bad enough when this applies to folk music, we shouldn't allow musicians from other genres to take advantage.