There's the rub, Bruce. I think that "traditional" implies a continuing tradition. With family, or cultural, or ethnic traditions, new practices are continually added to what is thought of as the tradition, and some of the old practices are no longer relevant, and are dropped from the tradition. I think the same should go for traditional music. We shouldn't exclude songs simply because they're new; nor should we include songs just because they're old.
Let's say that during the last Christmas season, our family did a few new things, ate a few new foods, or told a few new stories. If some of those innovations worked, they might become part of the family tradition, even though they were done only once or a few times before. I think it takes a little longer for a song to be brought into the canon of traditional music, but I do believe that new songs are being added as we speak. "Ashokan Farewell" could certainly be one. I'd say "City of New Orleans," "Aragon Mill," and maybe Bill Staines' "River" might be candidates for accelerated acceptance into the "traditional" category. Well, maybe not.
Then again, will we ever include Rodgers & Hart, Irving Berlin, the Gershwins, Cole Porter, and Johnny Mercer on our traditional list? Why not? Their works certainly are considered "standards," performed over and ower again by a host of performers. Something makes me think these songwriters won't ever be called traditional. I think it's because these are songs that are mostly performed by a performer for an audience. They aren't songs that spring from the community. They're wonderful songs and I love to sing them, but they are forms of individual expression, and are not necessarily expressive of any given community.
-Joe Offer-