"Stringsinger - I think you're being unreasonably confrontational - specially given Jerry's request in the OP."

No, I'm trying to shed some light as why traditional folk singing and material is being conflated with the contemporary/singersongwriter output. Remembeer the thread mentions the "folk process" so I don't think I'm being confrontational.

"I learned long ago not to call my songs 'folk' when in the presence of people who'd decided (unilaterally) that they owned that word and would allow only one use of it. "

That's fine. But there is a use for this word otherwise it wouldn't have been coined.

"But when in the presence of others I've often accepted the title, because I understand they're using it to mean something completely different - as indeed they have every right to do."

Of course. It's like Alice in Wonderland. "I mean what I say and I say what I mean".

"Actually I wasn't even thinking of any 'folk' process (I doubt my songs will ever qualify under your definition). I was merely saying that as a writer I welcomed the organic changes that take place naturally when others take on a song."

The question remains, is this really a part of a folk process?

"If that eventually proves, with hindsight, to be the first step in some 'folk process' then all well and good. But it's not claiming that my songs are therefore already 'folk' (by your definition)."

Or a part of any significant folk process.

As to how people should go about writing new 'folk songs,' your suggestion makes no sense at all. By your definition, no amount of study could make a new song instantly 'folk' - that can only come about through time and multiple usage by many over time.

The point is that in order to understand traditional folk songs, you do have to do some study. There seems to be a resistance to this. A new song can't become instantly folk.
That's an oxymoron.



" And by the other meanings of the f word, (there are quite a few - all legitimate), study of those topics would be unlikely to produce 'better' songs. Passion,"
objectivity, brevity, a talent for words, stories, chords and music is all that's necessary."

Again, back to Alice. "I mean what I say and I say what I mean". This is still not the
"folk process". Writing better songs requires some homework too.

"I happen to have put a fair bit of the topics you mention into some of my songs, and can think of many others far better informed than me who also do so, but it's not a prerequisite."

No, writing a good song doesn't mean you have to study folk music. Johnny Mercer, Irving Berlin, Paul Simon and many others wrote great songs. But these are not part of any
folk process.

"You personally may prefer new songs that have that sort of depth, but I hope you'd agree that it's not healthy to expect everyone to like only the style that you prefer."

And to infer that from my statements is completely missing the point I'm trying to make.
I like all kinds of music but I know the difference between contemporary songwriting
and traditional folk music.