It seems to me that nobody's got a definition they're happy with, apart from the 1954 definition (folk = traditional = oral transmission). This is understandable: nobody wants to define 'folk' to exclude traditional songs, but there isn't a definition in the world which will include Adieu Sweet Lovely Nancy and also include an open-mic cover version of Fire and Rain.

I'll ask the question another way: what would actually change if we all woke up tomorrow morning with the 1954 definition permanently engraved in our brains? Would it stop anyone from playing the songs they want to play or listening to the kind of music they want to listen to?

My main singaround calls itself "mostly but not exclusively traditional"; no F-word there, no change required. I sometimes go to a Folk Club whose website announces that "a mix of young singer-songwriters and life-hardened old timers play all kinds of music" (which, in my experience, is about right). They'd probably have to call themselves an Acoustic Club instead. But nothing would actually change - the same people would go and play the same music, some of it (but not much of it) traditional.

All you singer-songwriters and sub-Thompson plankbashers: if, all of a sudden, you couldn't refer to your songs as 'folk', what would it actually cost you?