I think Jerry Rasmussen has it absolutely right somewhere further up the thread about our attitudes in Britain. To put it crudely, we are too much up our collective backsides about the whole thing.

Some people seem to get hung up about the definitions and peddle out the (in)famous 1954 definition. I have no quibble about that definition but it should be recognised for what it is, an academic definition. A definition that is useful for folklorists who make an academic study of traditional music.

What it does not in any way reflect is what actually gets played and sung in folk clubs or on the concert stage. In that sense it is a very restrictive definition.

I believe folk music has at its heart the canon of traditional songs and tunes but can also include more recent compositions that are informed by the tradition. That, of course leaves the edges blurry, which makes some very unhappy, but there does seem to be a broad consensus as to what is appropriate to sing in a folk club or what one might expect at a folk concert.

To go back to Richard's original question, I am quite happy that the term "folk music" can be applied to a broader range of songs than just the traditional canon and I don't think we need a new term. It just needs folk to lighten up a bit and not to get hung up and nit picky. Think of the newer songs as modern equivalents of broadside ballads.

Just to anticipate those who use the "take it to the limit" technique of putting down an argument I am not saying anything goes. On the whole, if you sing, say "Dirty Old Town" in a folk club no one will complain, but they might look askance if you sang "Eleanor Rigby" even though both are excellent songs.