Tom.
Now, after a wonderful afternoon of singing, where most people in the room appeared to be in no doubt what they meant fy folk song - where was I!
"but for me 'folk' won't work any more, because too many people think it means something else."
Sorry Tom, we can't seem to get past this stumbling block.
General ignorance or deliberate misinterpretation is no reason to abandon a definition which perfectly explains the meaning of a word. Anyway, the 'folk' pool includes so few people, and the question arises so infrequently outside of that 'little circle of friends' (and enemies, if I am to take the title of this thread seriously) that it really is not an issue. It is not as if your 64 million people are banging on the door looking for a definition.
If people really want to know, they will look in a dictionary - if we adopt your solution, will they be any wiser for having done that - a little like starting up a dry-ice machine in a London pea-souper I would have thought!
Thank you for your 'gay' analogy - it's perfect for what I'm talking about. Of course there are numerous meanings to some words and gay has come to mean homosexual (you might also add the one derived from Middle English which means dissolute or licentious). Nobody would I hope, suggest that all definitions of 'gay' refer to the same thing, nor would suggest that all homosexuals have or show a "merry, lively mood". While some of my gay friends fit this description, others I have met were right miserable bastards.
Your proposal for the inclusion of your music under 'folk' merges the existing definition with your non-definition, (nobody, yourself included, has produced one single defining feature of your music, apart from the fact that it wasn't sung by horses!) suggesting that it is all the same thing.
Even the term used by some dictionaries (incorrectly), 'modern folksong' - "those which have been created in the folk style", doesn't work as a general catch-all because, while some writers are writing in this manner, many 'modern' folksongs have as little to do with the real thing as Brecht, Schubert or Gilbert and Sullivan.
What you are proposing is not a re-definition, but an abandoning of the existing one because it has become meaningless and undefinable, which to me is cultural vandalism.
The fact that your music lacks, even defies definition, means that it has become a large and extremely anti-social cuckoo in the nest.
It has also led to the practice of others dumping their particular product, 'Music-Hall', Parlour Ballad, early pop-song et al into the 'folk' slot and has led to the present state of the clubs.
Jim Carroll