"So, correct me if I'm wrong, if I identify something as a folk song, it then becomes a folk song because I have identified it as such"
You're wrong Raggy
It's like the story Joe Heaney used to tell about the Protestant man who married a Catholic girl on the understanding he would change his religion
One friday, a week after the marriage, the Priest visited the house and found the man tucking into a steak
Furious he reminded the man of his vow and told him he couldn't eat meat on a Friday
A week later he visited again and found the man about to tuck into a steak again, chanting "You're a fish, you're a fish"
That's a joke - apparently you are not joking.
Baccky is right - no harm in singing any song that fits the general description as long as you recognise they are not all the same - for communication purposes, if nothing else
Al
The Spinners did what they did well - it wasn't unskilled and deprived of instruments or technology - I dare say if it was available they wouldn't have used it - that's not who they were
For me they were a very welcome stepping stone but not enough to make me want to stick around forever
"thus not conforming to the 1954 definition of songs which states that:"
Why can't you accept that the definition has SFA to do with any of this?
You appear to be claiming that folk song as defined has no place in today's scene - if so - I'm sorry for your loss, but it has for a hell of a lot of other people
Jim Carroll