Howard,
"You appear to be overlooking the fact that the 1954 definition was for the purpose of academic study."
No it wasn't; it was an attempt by researchers and performers to identify a specific genre of music for all purposes, study and performance included.
"We can't really complain, since the folk revival was happy to go along with this at the time."
No we weren't - we walked away from the clubs in our thousands - and we never came back.
"the term "folk" slipped away from the 1954 definition long ago."
Again, not the case. A couple of years ago I completed my set of 'The Greig Duncan Folksong Collection', an incredible source of material for students and singers alike - and spot on '54'.
Shortly before that I received as a birthday present Vance Randolph's 'Unprintable Folksongs and Folklore' as a birthday present.
Far from having gone away, the term is still very much alive and kicking.
I was never a stickler for the strict use of the term as long as it didn't stray too far from its correct meaning, just as (occasionally) I am prepared to eat food which contains taste-alike ingredients that have never even seen the shadow of the real thing.
Traditional doesn't do as a term, as I am more than happy to listen to contemporary songs composed using traditional forms, even though they are neither/nor.
I certainly will never accept a folk club evening of Beatles songs, as happened not so long ago in the North of England.
If someone is prepared to come up with a workable definition which leaves the 1954 one intact, fine, let's look at it, but what is constantly being proposed is the total abandonment of any definition, which will ring (and has rung, to a great extent) the death-knell on folks song as I understand it as a performance art.
Jim Carroll