I've always worried over the 1954 definition ever since I first read it, not because it's obscure or ill-defined or wrong, but because of the "known-ness" or "unkown-ness" of the historical process for any individual song.

For example, if the origins of a particular song, which has little variation in it and which has been supposed to have been "absorbed into the unwritten living tradition of a community", are - for whatever reason - made clear, does that change it from folk music into something else? Does the discovery of the original manuscript of the song - say - suddenly put into perspective as something else?

I'm not trying to be trivial or nitpick here, but to indicate that, from one viewpoint to another there are many shades of grey. And do we say that, by definition, all folk music ceased to be such the moment it was written down, recorded and fixed in time and space.

And I've always thought - as I indicated in a thread to that purpose some time ago - that the definition seems limited to songs and words, and that, the moment you consider tunes, a haze spreads everywhere. To Carolan or not to Carolan - that is the question?