Richard, I beg to differ. You say "The mere fact that some results of applying a definition lead to surprising results does not necessarily mean that the definition is bad."

Actually, it does mean precisely that - the definition is ambiguous, and therefore does not "define", ergo it's useless. A definition in science bears only one interpretation. I appreciate that in law, an imprecise art, this may not be the case, and that's where lawyers come in to interpret.

And so all the various definitions you mention above are imperfect, and bear discussion, improvement or discarding. And the term f**k remains an arbitrary one (as it was indeed when it was coined), and so does the term tr@d1t10n@l (whose tradition, established when and transmitted how, relative to which moment in time etc etc). Both are open to interpretations, with no authority able to prove beyond doubt and discussion that their particular attempt to corral this herd of cats is the definitive one.

But that is fine by me. I feel no need to define the terms; and if in discussion my use of either term with respect to a particular song is challenged, so what. Vive la difference, I say.