You raise some interesting points HJ and I'd agree with many. The fact remains that the romantic and abstract were lost at the point 1954 attempted to bring a critical language to the idea of folk. I talked about folk being an 'unstable' entity and much of that instability is due to (what I perceive as) a deliberately evasive use of language which sanctions anyone who styles themselves as emblematic of 'the common man' to insist on his interpretation.

Until transference is based on an agreed form of change and quantified, romantic idealism will be a barrier to widespread acceptance. The cynic might suggest the avoidance of mass take up through institutionalised equivocation is precisely what aspects of the tradition have become known for.