I like the three axes, but I don't think there can be as much variation on the 'repertoire' axis as on the other two. I don't think the word 'folk' can ever be reclaimed for the 1956 definition, but I don't think that's the most important part of what Jim Carroll's saying (apologies to Jim if he thinks otherwise!) The question to my mind is whether the 1956 definition describes anything, and if so whether it's something valuable. Obviously(?) I answer Yes to both of those.

That leads to the question of whether this valuable thing has anything to do with the wellbeing of folk clubs, and if so what. According to Jim, moving away from traditional repertoires killed the folk clubs; according to Al, it was traditional purism that killed them. To me what matters is that 'folk' venues and events are the only places where you'll hear traditional music; you may hear a lot of other stuff there, but none of it is stuff that you can't hear anywhere else. That to me suggest that something's going wrong if the clubs aren't providing a home for traditional music, however well they're doing. A flourishing folk club is one that puts on traditional music and packs 'em in.

That's the view from my perch on the X axis, anyway.