A Question, for Ms. Paynter and others of her persuasion. There appears to be a widespread conviction around that what is important is to make as many proselytes as possible for "folk music." Can someone tell me why? Why is it so important to draw crowds? Is folk music a religion? I think what you are saying, and what gets said all the time around here, is that if people don't like "folk music," we should change it into something more like standard pop so it will have more mass appeal. WHY?! If I think someone will like a song, I tell them about it. If they don't, they are surely free to listen to something else. One hears from opera and symphony halls that they have to give their stuff more popular appeal so that they can continue paying overhead and musicians' salaries. But so far as I'm aware, "folk music" does not require auditoriums or orchestras, it is a personal thing or a family thing. We get told, we all have to admire Bob Dylan, because he did great things for folk music by drawing vast crowds. Why? Who wants those crowds, if they don't understand what it's all about? (And mostly, they don't.)

I think it is unfortunate, but we really don't get to define what is a "folk song," because the record labels and marketers do it for us.

I'm still unclear about "Celtic." I had sort of concluded it meant "dreary Irish stuff that might be o.k. for dance music." If it is more inclusive than that, then that's also a new wrinkle in my brain. In any case, it is for sure a commercial term with no particular musical or philosophical meaning. And "folk music" has come to be much the same thing.

Gee, Ms. Paynter, what, exactly, is gained by making people listen to stuff they are not interested in hearing.