"But I do object to being told that a completely undefined and open-ended mishmash of material, from Dylan to Rudyard Kipling to free improv, is in some mysterious way the definition of folk. "

We kinda understood that several hundred posts ago. The reality is, no one gives a flying fuck about your opinion, my opinion, or any opinion that has been posted here. The reality is reality.   You have an issue with the music that is being presented in clubs, so what do you do about it besides posting here? What are you trying to do to promote the music that you excited about? (If you think that you are more of an "enthusiast" than those that disagree with your opinions, you are living in a fantasy!)

This issue is not going away if we call it "folk". Let's just say that we all agree with the 1954 definition. Laws are passed that forbid the signing of Richard Thompson whenever the word "folk" is on a banner. Do you honestly think that agreeing on a definition is going to change interests and tastes?

If you want a REAL folk song - you sing it. Some punter on a stage is making music to entertain,perhaps educate, and hopefully to enjoy the experience of making music.   Folk music can be found in a community brought together in song. The application is just as important a part of the definition as the content.

Traditional music is not going to die out. There will be an interest, and the great work that many of you have done to preserve it is a treasure that people of my generation and younger generations can look to with deep respect and sincere thanks. You cannot alter the way the world spins no matter how many threads are started and opinions shared.

As I said in my first post in this thread - the topic is only going to create flames - and judging from all these posts, my thought came true.