I generally regard myself as a diedinthewool traddy, but for once I, like Robert Clive, stand here amazed at my own moderation. I do not feel the 1954 is helpful to evaluating the folk process. These definitions exist, and have to exist, for the purpose of academic funding. Noone will give money to any reseach into traditional dance until it has been defined tightly enough to be sure that the academic or institution concerned cannot get away with spending it on lap dancers. But for everyday purposes it's more helpful to rely on the fact that if it looks like a camel and smells like a camel, it probably is one and at any rate should be treated as such. I think the bottom line is that performers in folk clubs should have traditional songs/tunes as a part of their repertoire. Note I do not say 'a major part' or even 'a substantial part' - but a part none the less. If you are unable to interpret a traditional song then you are in the wrong place - the more so if you are interested only in performing ONLY your own composed songs (however folky), because I do not believe that level of conceit has ever had a place in the tradition.