I discovered something rather disconcerting recently, and I fear it is symptomatic of a much larger problem within the folk scene which has gone unchecked now for far too long. Apparently iTunes (the largest music retailer in the USA, and the foremost online music retailer in the world) recently deemed the "folk" genre as surplus to requirements - not the music itself, they just felt that the labeling could be better shared out amongst other genres such as "singer/songwriter", "acoustic", "world" and "country". Shoddy as this is on the part of Apple, it is merely the tip of the iceberg with regards collective attitudes towards the term "folk", and if you're looking for the source - I'd point my finger squarely in the direction of the folk scene itself.

There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding and disagreement between folkies on the issue of defining "folk music".  If you google such topics on folk music forums you'll see that this is an extremely contentious issue. The argument seems to split into 2 camps: first, there's those who go along pretty much with the dictionary definition: generally speaking - the music of the people (or the working classes), traditional or contemporary music performed in the traditional style of a particular area or country.  Secondly, there are those who believe that "folk music" can be used to refer to literally any kind of music you can think of - what's more, they abhor the former opinion, sighting it as conservative "purism" which gives the scene a bad name.

Personally, I tend to side with the first camp. "folk" as the title of a musical genre serves but one purpose - it's a label and we should treat it as such in trying to make it as accurate as we can. Granted, the boundaries of "folk music" are extremely blurred - and only a fool would claim to know where to draw the lines, but surely we can do better than "it can mean anything"?

One of the things which tends to give the folk scene a bad name is the fact that outsiders often have no clue what it consists of. When they do ask, they are very lucky if they don't get the stock standard apologist routine - offering up the most contrived and convoluted definition which reads a bit like a New Labour manifesto (ie, no real cohesive meaning or substance whilst desperately trying to appeal to as many people as possible). These people I'm sure, have perfectly noble (if somewhat naive) motives - and feel as though the only way their favoured musical genre could be accepted by others is via a carefully devised routine of mild deception and spin.

To these deluded souls, I can't help but plead with them to buck up their act and have a bit of pride in the music they claim to enjoy! Folk music is by far the oldest musical genre on the planet (it certainly has the largest back catalogue), so you're by no means in the minority. That which has been written and recorded under the "folk" heading includes some of the most seminal moments in musical history and that list is still being added to in what continues to be an extremely vibrant and contemporary scene. 

So, what's all this got to do with iTunes? Well, folkies everywhere are up in arms that their genre has been removed from it's service. I can't help but feel though, that Apple probably did this following numerous conversations where they were told that "folk" was a very "loose term" that many people were "uncomfortable trying to define" - indeed, they most likely thought they were doing us a favour. But who are these trumped up mouthpieces for the folk scene? On whose authority are they relieving us of an iTunes category, or the "folk" section in many record shops or what limited Radio airtime we already get?

Folk music has traditionally (contrary to popular belief), been the most open armed, liberally minded of the musical genres. Of course this should go without saying when you consider that folk music was present at the birth of almost every other style of music throughout history - and it is probably fair to say that the music business (at least in the mainstream) is one of the cruelest industries around, spitting out failed careers and broken dreams by the barrel load. More and more you'll find singer/songwriters who decide to give a musical career "one last go" via the folk scene, often they see it not as a separate genre, but merely a new audience for whom they need not modify their act - smugly citing "folk music" as meaning "anything you want it to". Now, I don't want to strip these people of a dream which may already be hanging by a thread - but their actions are diluting a whole musical genre and turning away audiences in their droves by causing a confusing distraction. And whilst we're on this point - when did "singer/songwriter" come to be so closely associated with "folk"? Singer/songwriters are as prolific in almost any other musical genre I can think of, it's about as helpful (or meaningless) as saying something like "guitar music".

Over the past decade, we've seen numerous folk clubs across the country mysteriously re-branding themselves as "acoustic" or simply "music" clubs. And we keep hearing talk of "getting away from the arron jumper set" - but this is 2009 not 1979 - the arron jumper set weilds no influence over the Scottish folk scene any more - it is an urban myth which refuses to die. Why? It is perpetuated by the folk scene with the unwitting aid of the media. The mainstream media have only ever had one angle on folk music, which is: "Wow, they're not old men wearing jumpers - is folk music becoming cool?". Due to the fact that the so-called journalists responsible for this familiar brand of unimaginative (not to mention misleading) tripe, usually haven't the faintest idea about folk music, the angle is unlikely ever to change.

The dark specter of the traditionalist, the purist, or (as I have heard reference to on more than one occasion) "folk nazi" - is often touted as being one of the most destructive forces in folk music. Personally, I have not yet met anyone whom I could describe as a "folk nazi", and I'm fairly sure I never will. Nor do I believe (as so many do) that folk music is somehow intrinsically conservative - you would be hard pushed to find a more varied and experimental array of musical styles than at your average folk festival (never mind the audiences attending).

I would finish by saying that "folk music" absolutely, categorically DOES NOT mean "anything you want it to", and anyone who says it does, is not qualified to speak on the subject - either that or they are willfully trying to dilute the genre beyond recognition for reasons known only to themselves. I would never be so bold as to try to define the boundaries of folk music, and I would concede that such a task is most likely impossible. I do however, know what I'd expect to see in the "folk" section of a record shop, and I strongly believe that such a section is necessary. This supposed conservatism which certain self important elements of the folk scene proudly claim to be crusading against, is nothing more than a destructive myth, and these unfounded fears are tearing apart a beautiful musical tradition rich in history - tainting its reputation, diluting its meaning and turning people away from the very core of one of the oldest and greatest musical traditions we have.