The mac went bonkers and posted while i was typing!

Ignore the above.

________________________________

A clarification on this bright Sunday morning.

I make no complaint about anyone arguing for or against the 'academic,' '54,' 'original,' or 'continuing' meaning of terms like 'folk song,' 'the tradition,' 'folk singer,' 'traditional song' and so on. Or for newer wider meanings of these words.

There is nothing wrong with debating these definitions and the issues behind them, and in the case of the word 'traditional' it's actually very important that the legal and musicalogical issues are kept in the public consciousness.

The debate may seem tedious and cyclical to some, but there are important issues at the heart of it.

But it's important that everyone understands that the only one of these words with a 'fixed' meaning is 'Traditional,' and only because of its quasi-legal definition. (Luckily this defends the musicalogical one, but it's not forced so to do).

All the other words and phrases, regardless of how they may be defined in books, or in popular usage by any number of groups or sects, are - to coin a phrase - in the public domain, and may be interpreted by different people in different ways.

We all use words in the ways we have learned them, from parents, teachers, peers, books and other media.

We learn new (old) words all the time, and the meaning of these words may be different to the way they were originally defined. Language is not carved in stone. Dictionaries and academic works need to be up-dated from time to time to allow for the changes that naturally take place. (Vis the word change in the 54 Definition from 'folk' to 'traditional' - and the way on-line dictionary definitions differ from older printed books). If they are not updated or footnoted they will eventually become opaque and very difficult to access (like Chaucer, for example).

(Pronunciation suffers a similar change - vis the recent loss of the 'r' in the word 'brought' - everyone seems to say 'bought' now, and if this becomes normal, then it will only be like 'walk' and 'talk' and 'golf' - or a word now in transition back to the original phonetic; 'vulnerable').

It is morally wrong to suggest that someone who uses a public-owned word in a slightly different way to your own preference is being deliberately obtuse, dishonest, or fraudulent. They are using it correctly, the way they have learned it, and they have every right so to do.

Argue for your own meaning by all means. But accept that others have a right to use words the way they have acquired them, and that to them that meaning is as correct, true, honest, natural and real as your own definition.

It is not ignorance, stupidity, or some deceitful trick for their own convenience, (or even madness - as expressed by Humpty Dumpty) for musicians to call their new songs 'folk.' It is correct in their terms in their world.

Seek to change their minds by all means, but respect their integrity - or else they will think you worse than foolish.

Tom