Wow, opinions all over the map. For myself, I'm glad that no one but me gets to make up rules about how or why I play any piece of music. If something works better for me, I change it, lyrics or melody. I don't care if anyone considers it a Folk Process change or a ghastly gaffe, those sorts of rules are for definitions and academia, not for actually playing music. I play almost entirely traditional folk music interspersed with medieval music and I don't pay any attention at all to historical accuracy or authenticity. As I say, caring about that is musicology, not music.

If I had to make a decision on the matter, I'd disagree with Jim Carroll and say that the folk process never died. It just changed with the times, the same way that traditional music has always done. I don't care if I learn a tune from a remote villager or from YouTube, I still learn the tune and I still feel free to do anything I want with it, and I still pass it on, either by teaching to a youngster or by putting out a CD. I don't see any incongruity.

Suibhne Ashtray seems to forget that the 1954 definition is about musicology. Deciding how to play a song is about playing music. There's a big difference between the two. I see no inconsistency in wanting a firm definition of a musical genre or folk process for the purpose of talking about said genre and process, and also not thinking about that at all while deciding what to play and how to play it.

Aren't we lucky the Folk Police don't actually have any authority over us?

John