John P I was responding to the original poster. I fail to see how calling me stupid adds or detracts from his proposition, though name calling is always fun tithead. My conclusion from reading your posts and others is that folk shifts (as I suggested many posts ago) between being an intellectual post-rationalisation of the discoveries of the folk revival and a type of music.

My opinion is that an aural phenomenon (we're talking music here, not dance or lore) will defy historic conventions no matter how well intended or appropriate at the time they were written, to accommodate what happens on the ground. History suggests I'm right, folk (the folk in the title) has shifted its current definition away from the one intended 55 years ago.
Do please concentrate.