"since it's trad music, why put your name there at all? It's just part of the trad process."
Sorry - am not understanding this; who exactly is 'putting their name on' anything, certainly not me or mine?
Those I know involved in traditional music acknowledge it to be largely anonymous and usually indicate that fact. It is the singer-songwriter who claim (quite rightly) authorship; but then go on to attach the description 'folk' to their songs.
"Yup, it is a vignette of songs sung by old folks when the Cecil Sharp was on the rampage."
Nope - it's been around and fully accepted since the early 19th century when it was used to describe the lore and tales of specific communities. It was well-established and widely in use by the time Sharp 'was on the rampage', and is inseparable from the lore, tales, customs, belief etc of the communities that created them. And no Bert, what you put up wouldn't have become folk - they had known authors (owners), the folk had no part in either their making nor transmission.
"Folk" is a matter of derivation. It is not a matter of quality or style."
Spot on Richard - I would only add that nor is a matter of personal preference (not any more anyway).
Earlier on Will proffered as a definition "I think that if I were to say that I love and play the music of Jimmie Rogers, the Carter Family, the Delmore Brothers....".
Presumably if a neigbouring folkie substituted Elvis, The Osmond Family and The Everly Brothers, that would then be his/her definition of 'folk'?
Here we leave the real world and go through the looking glass where "Words mean what I want them to mean".
Jim Carroll