Suggest you take a look round the shelves of the British Library, Lib. of Cong. et al.

Doesn't that confirm that Folk is (partly) the reserve of Academia - a study of a music rather than a music in itself? This stands in stark contrast to the source of the thing, much less to the feral nature of music as a whole. I suppose Folkies can think of themselves as Purists because of the way this stuff was skimmed and selected and hermetically sealed therafter - entirely removed from its initial context. The taxidermical approach to zoolology is all very well, but tells us nothing of animal behaviours, calls and rituals; much less their tracks in mud and snow. Indeed, it depends on killing them first in order to ensdur their survival - albeit stuffed in a glass case, far removed from their natural habitat.

I'm not wanting a fight here, much less agree with your rather irksome foe, just trying to put some flesh on the bones of the Folk Beast so we might understand IT as a living entity, and not just as a bunch of myths and shibboleths about The Tradition, The Folk Process and the 1954 Definition. Methinks a wee measure of objectivity goes a long way...