I would like to endorse the comments above. Jim, I have the greatest respect for your work with the tradition and fully understand the point of view you are coming from.

I think you must have been unlucky with the folk clubs you went to. I regularly went to folk clubs for about 20 years, starting in about 1970. The range of music was very wide, but was substantially 1954 folk, albeit mostly performed by revival performers rather than true traditional singers. But I was lucky enough to see the Coppers, Fred Jordan, Walter Pardon and a number of others.

But in addition to this there was a range of other music, not traditional but which was in some way acceptable to a folk audience. Not all of it was to my taste, but the same can be said for 1954 folk as well.

The reasons for the decline of the folk clubs is a subject for another thread, but I believe it was largely down to economic factors and other demands on the time and money of both club audiences and organisers. The clubs that survive are often singers clubs - on the few occasions I now visit I find the range of material is no different from the heyday in the 1970s and 80s, but they can't afford to book professionals so the standard is often lower.

I'm sorry Jim, but you are wrong when you say that the idea of "folk" has not changed. It hasn't changed for people like you, who are deeply involved with traditional music, but it has for other people. The 1954 definition is still valid, but the term "folk music" which it was applied to has moved into the general language and acquired a broader meaning.

I don't think the "other folk music" is trying to pretend it comes into the 1954 definition, but the folk revival was always willing to embrace other music besides strict 1954. As, of course, were many traditional singers, who often had music hall and popular songs in their repertoire alongside true "folk songs" and often recognised the distinction between them. So this is nothing new.

Let us suppose that "folk music" had kept its strict 1954 meaning. I think the folk revival would still have embraced Bob Dylan, Ralph McTell etc because it saw a relationship with 1954 folk that brought it into the tent. The folk clubs were always about performance and entertainment rather than the study of folk song. They might have had to be called "folk and XXXX clubs", just as the early ones were known as "folk and blues" clubs, but the range of music would be the same.

If people ask me what sort of music I play, I tell them "folk music". They understand this, in a vague sort of way. If I told them "traditional music" I would have to explain what I meant. If I tried to give them the 1954 definition their eyes would glaze over. To them the distinction is meaningless.

As I said, Jim, this is with the greatest respect to your point of view. No one is saying you can't "folk music" in its 1954 sense, it will always be clear, if only from the context, what you mean. But you can't stop others from using it differently - again, it is usually clear from the context what they mean. We could wish for greater precision in the language, but that's not how it evolves.