Here there is an evident paradox, whereby the less obviously Folk in terms of Form becomes the so much more satisfyingly Folk in terms of Content

Mu. I'm starting to think La Easby has a point (although I h*te those wr*tch*d *st*r*sks) - the problem we've got here is actually the word 'folk'. If you'd said, for example, that you prefer Fairport's first album, even though it's not traditional material, because it sounds more rough-edged or full-on or heartfelt than the others, then we could have talked about the music. If you say that it's more *folk* even though it's less *FOLK*, and yet somehow it's *F*o*l*k* in a way that transcends f/o/l/k, then we just end up talking about words.