The purpose of a definition is to enable the precise identification of something. To achieve this it needs to be as objective as possible. Whilst I don't necessarily like the "1954 definition", it is as objective as possible and is, therefore, a useful definition. I may agree that those who first coined the term may have had little real knowledge of a culture they claimed owned the "folk process" but it still remains as near an objective definition as can be achieved.   The other "definitions" presented here are subjective rather than objective and therefore, as definitions, are not useful. In order to know what would be classified as a folk song using these alternatives one would need to be able to read the mind of the person using them. There are plenty of songs that I like, that I would like to be folk songs because I like them or because the audience applauds them when I sing them in a "folk club", but any attempt on my part to classify them as such would be subjective. A definition is not about my likes or dislikes or even the audience's likes or dislikes.

There also seems to be much confusion here with songs that are popular with folk and songs that have been created by a "folk process" and even between the subjective decision of "good" and "bad" songs. A friend once passed a quote on to me about singers. To rephrase it: "A good singer stands behind the song, a poor singer stands in front". I think you could turn this round and say "A good song can stand in front of the singer". In other words it should not need to rely on arrangements or "performance".   That's not to say that you couldn't produce or enjoy a good arrangement etc, just that the song shouldn't need it to live. I was thinking of this in the context of folk songs. I can't think of a folk song (1954 style) that can't stand on its own. They wouldn't have survived, been passed through good singers and bad, if they had relied solely on the performance. Perhaps that's what Phil Edwards identified when he found traditional folk song, the inherent quality of the song itself. I'm not quite such a purist as Jim Carroll – I haven't completely given up hope that the "folk process" could still operate but I think a good test for candidates would be to see if the song would still work if you stripped away the guitar riffs, the "arrangements" and even the presence of an audience to laugh in the "right" places.

I'll add that I don't just like the "1954" folk songs (some I actively dislike). My own repertoire is made up of about 50% songs written within the last 50 or so years with known authors (even, in some cases me). I never go on a first visit to a club or singaround expecting to sing or prejudging what I'll find. Once I've found out what style prevails, and if I can match some of my own repertoire to it, I may go back. If I don't think I fit in I don't blame them or accuse them of some sort of conspiracy. Some places I return to over and over again - and some have even let me in again!    I take Jim's point that it might be nice to be able to tell in advance what to expect but I don't think that will ever happen: some battles are already lost.

(P.S. I'm just off now to buy a pair of "Bench" underpants to display above the drooping waistband of my trousers. I find having my trousers falling off helps with my credibility in some circles as well as making sure my hands are too busy to stick fingers in my ears. (No offence to rappers intended – I have always been impressed by their dancing skills.)