I reckon the problem is that when we talk about English traditional folk we're all talking about slightly different things.

I don't believe we're talking about a living tradition that can be added to and developed by the people whose tradition it was. We're talking about nothing more than a series of slightly random snapshots of a past tradition that no longer exists in any sphere outside of the specialist enthusiasms of traditional music fans and academics. We can't develope or add to the tradition because there is no tradition left to develope or add to. What we can do is to add to and develope the canon of songs that exists in the revival folk world. This is a completely different thing.

Can we add to the folk canon? The answer to which is clearly "yes". Can we add to the tradition? The answer is "do you want to borrow my time machine?"

So the argument is not about the tradition but what people want the folk scene to look like. I'd say that as ever, there's plenty of room for different versions of what the folk scene might include and its a big enough tent not to get into any fights. It's only a hobby.

So when Al (for example - nothing personal!) says that traditional folk is not the music of the people, he's absolutely right. But there again, neither is he right to substitute the work of folk scene singer songwriters. If anything is the music of the people right now, its the x-Factor and whatever else tops the charts for long enough to demonstrate it's not just the kids that are buying it.

Bloody hell. I think I'm convinced.