If I thought the Revival was bad, I wouldn't have devoted so much of the last 36 years immersing myself in the perfect joy of the thing. The essential nature of Folk is as reactionary as it is radical, and entirely in keeping with its veneration of the fossil record which is exactly how it should be. So for all its vibrancy, inventiveness, community spirit and eccentricity, Folk remains a conceit of the more enlightened classes, the language of which will always be couched in terms of classification and taxonomy even by more casual practitioners, which wouldn't be the case in (say) UK Hip Hop which is a living breathing creative idiom in its own right. Outsiders may well study it, but their study would be of no interest to the punters. Unlike Folk, which is born from such study and wouldn't exist without it. This accounts for the demographics and the general rarity of the thing, and the all pervading preciousness & occasional (!) churlishness too. But I've got no problem with that whatsoever; I revel in the Academic Ossuaries; there is no greater joy. No Revival Singer of Traditional Songs can be so without being part Academic as well; it's surely integral to the nature of the thing to go rooting from variation to field recording to Broadside to historical record just to give the song the respect it deserves - just look at the Trimdon Grange and Gallows Ballad threads.

As for Country - like I say, exceptions prove rules, but it cuts both ways. There is a worrying increase in Right Wing Folk, just as there's a pleasing increase in Left Wing Country, but I always try and take a wider view of such things.