Jim,

I wasn't using "academic" as invective or as a put-down, what I was trying to convey was that the 1954 definition was intended mainly for those working in the field of folk music, which I am happy to accept includes performers as well as academics. And I don't doubt that in 1962 "folk song" still meant the 1954 definition. But only a few years later it had expanded to include Dylan, Peter Paul & Mary, the Byrds, and pretty much anyone playing an acoustic guitar.

I don't think this is "Newspeak", which is a deliberate attempt to manipulate language in order to mislead, simply a casual misuse of the phrase. Journalists and the public both needed a label for this new type of music which had invaded the world of popular music. It is unsurprising that they latched onto the term "folk" when so many of those involved at the time were also involved with 1954 folk music and described themselves as folk singers. Yes it dilutes the meaning, but for most people the distinction is irrelevant.

Of course the term "folk music" remains in current use, and I use it interchangeably with "traditional music". But I accept the fact that, the original meaning, the 1954 meaning, has become watered down, and if I want to be more specific I say "traditional music". I'm not saying this is a good thing, simply that's how the language has evolved - not through any sinister attempt to undermine traditional music, just through the need for a simple label to cover acoustic music which had at least some links with 1954 folk.

I have to admit to being unclear by what criteria some modern songwriters are accepted as "folk" while others are not. Sometimes it seems to be a bit arbitrary. But I don't think Beatles songs qualify - they don't usually follow a similar structure to traditional songs, nor were they written with folk clubs in mind as a target audience. While they have become popular and may be often sung by "the folk", they have still to show the degree of variation required by the 1954 definition, and I suspect that most people still have the original tracks firmly in their minds when they are singing them. I don't believe the qualify as folk yet, but many of them are strong enough songs that they could well evolve into folk songs, given time.

If you are going to insist on "folk music" only being applied to music which fits the 1954 definition, then you are going to have to find another term for the range of other music which doesn't fit it but is nevertheless accepted in the folk revival. Either that or say the other music has no place in folk. The first is impractical because the wider world is quite happy with its usage of the term, and I don't think you believe the second any more than I do.

Jim, the genie is out of the bottle. You may deplore the dilution of a term with a precise meaning into one which is so vague as to almost defy definition, but I don't believe the linguistic process can be reversed.