the archaic oral process these songs have to undergo first, in order to satisfy the 'definition', are next to impossible nowadays due to advances in technology never dreamed about by the - now non-existent - IFMC back in 1954.

Yes, this is what I've been saying all along. "Seeds of love" reached us by a different route from "Streets of London", and it's a route that is now very largely blocked off. That's not a value judgment, it's just history: it's a descriptive statement about the way stuff happens (or doesn't happen).

I don't understand why this is controversial, let alone why Sminky thinks it's some kind of elitist conspiracy. Is the problem with the phrase 'folk process' - shall we call it something else? The Snelgrove Process, let's say. While it's true that singers continue to sing, players continue to play, listeners continue to evaluate and no two renditions of the same song or tune will ever be quite alike*, in this age of mechanical reproduction these sources of variation can never have the same effect that they used to have. As a result, the Snelgrove Process has effectively ceased to operate, and may never be any more Snelgrove Songs.

There now - everyone who thinks it matters will know exactly what I'm talking about, everyone who thinks it doesn't will think I'm wittering on about nothing, and we can all agree to differ.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go and start a Snelgrove Club.

*SS is right about this; it is a matter of degree, and to some** extent it is all folk music.
**More precisely, to a very, very limited extent.