*Dons hipwaders*
*adds snorkel*

OK, now that I'm ready to wade into this one...

First, as to the original question... My experience is that the s/s who choose to call themselves 'folk musicians' do so for a couple fairly recurrent reasons.

The most justified (in my mind) are those that do a majority of traditional material with occasional original or more recent numbers thrown in. Yes, they're still singer/songwriter for those numbers that are theirs, but they also play VERY heavily from the body of traditional music.

The opposite are those who only play original numbers. I've actually discussed this point with someone who does this and calls himself a folksinger. His view is that his songs are good enough to be 'folksongs' and thus he's a folksinger.

Of course, I think he's an idiot, but that's for discussion on another thread.

Most s/s folksingers seem to fall between these points, and in all honesty almost all that call themselves 'folksingers' come closer to the former than the latter.

Now... as to the 'what is folk' brouhaha...

I suggest that at this point, it's narrowminded to view 'folk' as a single descriptive. I rather think that folk consists of many parts, rather than just one. After all - look at 'Rock' as a descriptive label. Yes, that denotes someone following a persuasion of music that became popular first in the mid to late '50s. BUT, to actually describe the style they play in, you have to add "Acid Rock"... "Hard Rock"... "Soft Rock"... "Adult Contemporary Rock"... "Classic Rock"... etc. Each is a distinct subgenre - and if you don't believe that, then sit down some day and listen to The Who (Classic), followed by Napalm Death (Grindcore). I doubt that anyone would come out of that experience saying that all rock is the same (assuming they survived the transition.)

So where does that leave 'folk'? I'd say as scattered as the elements that make it up. In my mind, there's 'regional folk', consisting of the traditional songs of a given area that are absolutely specific to that area. Songs like "Men of Harlech" and other specific tunes come to mind. There's 'historic folk', for the songs that aren't in ready circulation, but are still kept alive by the archivists and groups that specialize in it. Also, I'd say there's a distinct "folk dance music" subgenre - songs that are meant as companion tunes to go with various dances.

The best part is, that like most other musical genres, NONE OF THEM ARE ABSOLUTELY EXCLUSIVE! That's part of why there is no steady and completely accepted answer to 'what is folk'. You can often tell when something isn't folk, and when something definitely is - but there's a lot out there that fits the description of 'folk' as well as other genres as well.

Heck, I lost myself somewhere in there. I guess that in my twisted little mind, the discussion of "who or what is folk" has as much a chance of resolution as "Is there a god(s)?" and other topics of endless debate. All fine for a debate over a pint or seven (and you all owe me now - Pay up!), but pointless to elevate the blood pressure.

And to Art's statement: I do see the point. There ARE too many idiots goign around who figure that singing about their navel lint and why their girl kicked them off of her couch is 'folk' so long as it's acoustic. However, I wouldn't say that the general umbrella of 'folk music' is in danger of being bastardized now any more than it's ever been. Kinda hard to hurt something that won't stay still long enough to be recognized, and the chaff will eventually be blown away. What's left will be the NEXT tradition.

M