Don't need to calm down, Spleen, I'm fine.

The opening salvo in this little exchange was the descent into personal put-downs, and I will no longer participate because it has degenerated to a slagging match. Sinister may be a very fine fellow in all respects, and judging from what I've seen of his work on YouTube, he does some quite interesting stuff. Whether it can be called "folk" or not is certainly debatable, but frankly, I'm not too sure that the outcome of that debate one way or the other is worth the time an effort.

And again, from the impression I get of English folk clubs, at least on these threads, I think I'll just stay where I am. I do, however, hear far different reports from people I know who have been to English folk clubs. But perhaps not the same ones you folks frequent.

I still maintain that the 1954 "definition" is a description of what is rather than an ironclad rule about what ought to be, and I personally can't find much fault with it--save that there are people who get bent out of shape if something they cobbled together two days ago falls short of fitting the description, and they insist on having instant acceptance of their efforts as a "folk song."

You can't just sit down with your ball-point pen and a sheet of paper and write a folk song. It just ain't done that way, never has been, never will be.

I might add at this point that since when does singing songs that fit right in with the 1954 definition mean that it's not fun to do so? I think it may be that there are people here on this very thread who just don't really like folk music!

Don Firth