Jim,
Even though my primary interest in this music isn't academic, but rather just playing the music, I do think definitions are important. What I don't think is important is wrestling over the details of the definition. The only reason for doing that is to establish clear lines, which I don't think is possible or desirable. As has been noted here before, probably by you, the lines are movable and the gray area is huge. When I see SS legalistically bending the words of 1954 around so that it includes anything he wants it to, I have an interesting dual reaction: I'm bored by the legalistic point-making; it reminds me of a courtroom, where more credit is given to building a logical edifice than to arriving at the truth. In a discussion of this type, it's just piss-poor communication. But I'm also pissed off that someone who clearly understands the folk process is perverting the meaning of 1954 to make it include anything he happens to like, making the definition of traditional music as meaningless as the definition of folk has become.

As I've said, everyone I know who knows anything about traditional music has a really good idea of what traditional music means. It's not rocket science. Part of the reason I'm in this discussion is because there are apparently a lot of people who don't know enough about traditional music and who want to call all manner of things traditional that clearly aren't. My lines on this topic are wider than most, and I still get called the folk police when I ask that modern compositions by people who don't play traditional music don't get referred to as traditional music. Of course, I know that when small-minded folk are confronted with the need to support their silly statements, they use name calling instead of a simple "Oh, good point."