In the States, folk music as a genre became a record bin for distributors of recording companies.
The cultural connection with a sub-group was no longer material. When the popularization (Van Ronk's Folk Scare) became obsolete then the question arose "what is folk?" Academic folklorists and musicoligists had their own definition. The Big Bill Broonzy/Louis Armstrong
bromide about "horses don't sing it" is not a good syllogism. Horses don't sing any other kind of music that we know about.

But the reason, like for most of consumables these days, is about money. The real oxymoron for me is the notion of a "folk star".

In the States, Ted Jioia believes that the "multinationals" are a part of Silicon Valley who as he says "are eating Hollywood's lunch". Hi tech money is controlling the dissemination of the music industry to the public.

We Mudcatters (and forgive me if I have the hubris to represent many here) need to fight back which actually I think we are doing. In this way I agree with Big Al in that I don't give a shit
for the popularization by media of folk music. On the other hand, it controlled the image
during the Folk Scare and a folksinger was reduced to a longhaired girl with a guitar making up personal statements or a scruffy bearded torn jeans wearing young white boy with a growly voice attempting to represent the rural Southern US. That's a straight-jacket that belies the vitality of the folk "process".

So we can give up on the mainstream media to ever launch a folk revival. The biggest folk revival will and is taking place in the living room not the Net which is being usurped by the money makers who control it.

For me, this is why Mudcat is so valuable. We define folk music. It's important in our lives and when we share it, the world is better off for it.