We always get hung up on definitions, whether it's the definition of genius, or the definition of folk music. Imprecise terms such as these will always be applied differently by different individuals.

Elijah's comments (and Van Ronk's comments) about the "real" issue are more interesting, I think. If I'm following this correctly, Van Ronk seems to have believed that Dylan and others would have produced more consistently interesting work if they had had a better grounding in music theory, giving them the ability to move beyond the simple three-chord structures they usually worked in. Dylan has said the same thing himself -- I remember reading a comment he made to this effect when receiving an honorary doctorate of music from some institution or other -- and I think some of his work shows him straining against the limits of his musical craftmanship.

At the same time, there's something about the immediacy of the simple folk-based structures that makes them very compelling settings for the type of songs Dylan writes. Could you set a line like "the ghost of electricity howls in the bones of her face" (the line Ralph Gleason cited in a famous critique of his) to a Duke Ellington melody? Would it work as well? I don't know, truthfully; maybe that's something for our next folk genius to tackle. [The one person I can think of who comes closest to having both the lyrical and musical chops to pull something like this off is Elvis Costello. He's not someone who would be universally recognized as a folk artist, but it sounds like Van Ronk's comment was pushing for a more expansive musical pallette anyway.]

That, to me, is a far more interesting topic that our competing definitions of "genius".