A very good analysis Pip but I'd take one issue with it. Streets of London, a song I carry a particular antipathy for, is a folk song because it's generally spoken of as such. If we're going to be particular about language, then we must also be consistent and recognise terms like 'the common people' and 'oral tradition' are meaningless. They wouldn't stand up unaided in masters degree let alone a court of law.

My favoured position is closer to 1954 than many would give credit for but where I depart is the idea that folk can have no present or future tense, that 'we are not the folk' and never can be because of the vicissitudes of recording. Human nature hasn't changed so we're left with a verbal abstraction. The hard line/authentic definition has its merits but has created a popular image of folk music as anachronistic and of being of no more relevance to the common man than a breast plough. It's an activity like pretending to be a Napolionic foot soldier, quite possibly enjoyable but divorced from the realities than necessitated the job and mainly about fancy dress.

As I've said before, what people usually mean by folk is folk revival, the frozen moment, the historical snapshot which saw time compressed. It's illusory because it puts mid-Victorian sensibilities on a par with medieval ones while making it impossible for the current day to add its mark. Truly, most people don't give a flying **** about titles, they're just getting on with making music in the tradition.