Jim,

I may have missed something, but I'm not sure that anyone has challenged the validity of the 1954 definition - I certainly haven't. It's a useful and well thought out definition, in my opinion. But the language has changed over the last 50 years, and both the general public and the folk movement now use the term in a much wider sense.

Yes its regrettable, but it's what happens to language. If you think you can reverse it, good luck, but it's been established now for half a century. Personally, I think you're on a loser. That's not to say I don't agree with the principle, but I'm being pragmatic.

I'm not sure what damage has been done to 1954 folk music by this. For years the folk clubs thrived on a mixture of 1954 and other folk. Whatever the reasons for the subsequent decline of the clubs I don't believe it was because they were offering too little or too much 1954 folk.