Interestingly, if one goes back to the OP, no attempt is made to define folk, merely to describe what happens in places and contexts that label themselves or are labelled as folk. The opener merely suggests that the 1954 definition may bear little resemblance to what happens in the name of folk in 2009 and invites discussion. Other people decided to turn it into another what is folk thread, which of course delighted SS and allowed him to play the mischievous prankster card to great effect. Meanwhile we are back to the same old circular argument, with a few variations.

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but one thing that does interest me is the new songs in the style of issue Jim wrote about a few posts back. Putting aside the question of whether or not they are folk songs for a while, I find it difficult to understand how this works, other than: i) as a gateway drug to anything goes; ii) highly subjectively (sounds like is in the ear of the beholder); iii) via what I shall call the Darowyn method (I can't put it into words, but I know it when I hear it). I'm probably in group three as I'm not a music scholar or any such thing, so I approach my listening pleasure intuitively rather than academically. I know what type of traditional song flips my universe inside out - but by the same token I know what kind of written song has the same effect. In this scenario, formal definitions are less important. But that's purely a personal thing for me.