Glad to hear it, Kate! Enthusiasm for one music style should never preclude enthusiasm for any other style. My own musical tastes are very wide and varied - people who ride in my car never know what to expect to hear on my car stereo! Jimi Hendrix, Beethoven, Dire Straits, J.S. Bach organ music, Fairport Convention, Amy Grant, Jane and Amanda Threlfall, Bluegrass banjo... I enjoy variety.


wilco48: yes, exactly - just the elitism I was referring to.

It's one thing to keep traditions alive, and another thing to kill them off through resistance to change.

Folk music is a living tradition, which is why the apparent oxymoron of 'modern folk' must be nurtured. But it should not be nurtured to the exclusion and eventual loss of tradition... a fine line.

But what counts as 'modern folk'? Here in the UK, Country and Western, Jazz, and Blues all seem to creep into folk clubs, and I'm not so sure that it is appropriate... yet some - but by no means all - Beatles' songs (and others) seem to fit into the 'folk genre' quite comfortably... possibly because us fifty-something folkies also grew up in that era.

'Folk' is a very wide term which can legitimately be applied to many forms of music on the premise that it is 'music for the people'. NOT my own opinion, BTW. Just quoting.

The danger with becoming too diverse is a loss of identity. Strange how so many non-folk people here in the UK equate 'Folk' with 'Country and Western', yet the two are really poles apart.

I am classified as a 'Folk' performer, yet my repertoire includes not only traditional and contemporary 'folk', but also Bluegrass, Music Hall and, yes, even some Beatles' and Stones' songs...! In some cases it is the style of performance, rather than the music itself...