And we have many definitions of "folksong," some of which we can even "refer back to."

Do we? I only know of one definition of "folksong" - one definition and a lot of people objecting to it, but without proposing any alternative.

The thing about definitions is that they define - they draw a line. And that line may not go where you want it to. If we start from the assumption that folk = traditional = "1954 definition", there's room for real debate about whether an individual song fits the definition - be it Sally Wheatley, the Grand Conversation on Napoleon or Sir Patrick Spens. But it doesn't stop anyone singing songs that aren't traditional - why would it?

I think a lot of people bring value-based baggage to this argument - as if to say, I love folk music, I love these songs, therefore these songs must be folk songs; or, I'm a folkie, I sing to folk audiences, therefore everything I sing must be folk. I think this urge to define 'folk' more and more widely is understandable, but it needs to be resisted. My own starting-point is that there is a lot of traditional music which I love as dearly as any other music I know - and there are a lot of 'folk club songs' which leave me completely cold. I was a regular floor singer at a folk club for several years before I discovered traditional songs - the folk club repertoire just got in the way. Define 'folk' to include traditional songs and Dylan and Richard Thompson and Roy Harper and songs by rivals, followers and imitators of Dylan and Richard Thompson and Roy Harper and whatever else anyone brings along on the night, and some very rare and distinctive jewels get lost among a lot of other stuff which is more widely available, lower quality or both.