"most of us aren't particularly interested in fine-tuning our idea of what is and is not folk music to that degree" - Brian Peters

That's true and probably the only sensible attitude to take on the subject. However there are those on Mudcat who take an uncompromising stance, the - "1954's the definition, if people are too stupid to understand, screw them" position. I believe if you're going to be that prescriptive your source is going to be both impeccable and served by peerless logic, not bull at a gate didacticism.

HJ, it's not that I don't like what's put on, I do most of the time. My tastes are eclectic; nu-folk youngsters, traditional British recordings of Topic, world music. If there is a split at the heart of folk it's that the high degree of professionalism of name artists has placed folk firmly in the entertainment industry. I'm happy to pay £20 to see such entertainment but SS's craky homespun stuff may be nearer folk's true roots than polished bravura instrumentals by pro's at the town hall.