"Gets complicated , doesent it??? "
Not really - as somebody has pointed out, nobody expects to come away with a complete understanding of a subject just by looking it up in a dictionary.
The 1954 definition, as far as I'm concerned, does the job adequately, even without adjustment, in outlining an identifiable and unique body of material, but if you are going to understand the subject fully you have to look at it in the context of relative factors, for instance, folklore, extensively accepted and in use since it was first coined by William Thom in 1846. Also via the thousands of volumes of literature on the subject.
Anybody wanting to stretch and adapt the term to include new factors, as far as I'm concerned, has to present those factors for consideration, not by wishing a re-definition into place.
"I'd say it say it was simplicity itself; just sit back and savour. If you don't like it, go to the bar"
You mean you can't do these things and attempt to understand the music?
Jim Carroll