Part of the problem, I suspect, is that traditional songs—the *real* folk songs—were pushed into he background by "folk" singer-songwriters, who were anything but folk (I can say that, having one foot in each camp), writing new songs, in a largely non-traditional manner, and usually nothing like traditional performance styles.

It's the latter labeling , IMO, that has first off all contributed to confusion about the word, and secondly led to so many people not wanting to be folk-identified. Traditional songs and tunes go on contributing the backbone to music and draw me, for one, as no other type of song does.

There is, however, the real question whether, in a music world dominated by commercial product (including "folkie" product), traditional music has the strength, or the outlets, to break through. I think Scotland and Ireland are good examples of traditions that remain vigorous.

Here in the US, though, a body of traditional songs familiar to most as recently as the earlier (1950s) careers of active performers like Burl Ives, Pete Seeger, et al (excuse me for citing them in the same sentence), is simply not reaching enough ears. Drowned out! and not chosen by very many as part of their repertoires. An old refrain, sure, but this time media might make it an epitaph.

Hope I'm wrong! I want traditional songs and tunes, done traditionally, to continue still vigorous for hundreds of years yet (at the very least). Bob