It doesn't matter - not really. We've got to sing songs we like. Whether or not something's 'folk' shouldn't matter too much to those who sing them. The songs should matter, not the label, and if one loves old folk songs, it's because they love the SONGS. I'd say that it's not a folk song, meaning traditional and orally transmitted unless it gets adopted by a people and passed on. There are plenty of relatively new songs which I think are working their way down the generations and will probably still be sung in a couple hundred years. I think Yellow Submarine is a perfect example. If today is like it was when my mom drove a school bus in the 70's, kids are learning that one from parents and other kids and driving the bus drivers batty. I think quite a few Tom Paxton songs are headed that way simply because they're great songs and people love to sing them.

The problem is that people don't want to consider time as a factor in turning their favorite songs into folk songs, and maybe think the people, the masses, the folk don't have a say. Now that is snobbery: "I am right and no one else matters, and if you don't agree, you're a _____(fill in word: snob/pedant/elitist/poopy-head)!" Language is consensual; what becomes and is 'folk' is consensual. In the end, no single person can keep a song alive (OR change the meaning of a word) - it's got to be known and sung by a bunch of folks, or it just fades away when the singer goes. We don't have the power to determine a song lasts past us, but we sure have the power to pass on songs we think are good, and we can hope others will pick them up and carry them on.

In the end, it's comforting to know that neither Martin Gibson or myself will make the determination and will only get our individual votes by passing or not passing on a song. Each one of those kids on the back of the bus gets a vote, and so does your brother Bob who taught YOUR kids to sing "Billy, Don't Be a Hero."