The bit in the original 1954 definition about anonymity seems to be derived from the rather romanticed image some of the early collectors had. But lets remember that these were not academic researchers but enthusiasts, driven by not only an interest in the music but often also by socio-political notions of a society and way of life which was already dramatically changing, and which the singers from whom they collected represented the last generation. The methodology and ethics of collecting were still to be established.

I haven't seen anyone here trying to defend every last detail of the 1954 definition, neither is it inconsistent for this to have evolved as the subject develops and knowledge improves. Neither is the 1954 definition in all its detail necessarily relevant to a modern performer, but the concept it tries to pin down certainly should be. As a young performer, I knew about the "folk process" long before I came across the 1954 definition in Bert Lloyd's "Folk Song in England".

With modern research resources, the origin of many traditional songs and tunes is emerging. Many can be traced back, if not to a named composer, at least to an identifiable source - broadsides, theatrical shows, military bands, classical compositions.

It is not knowledge, or the lack of it, of the original authorship which is important. "Folk" is a Darwinian process: it is the evolution of the original piece, whether it came from an individual in the community or a commercial source, which makes it "folk", and gives it its particular character. Like biological evolution, the results could be haphazard, and there are plenty of duck-billed platypuses as well as a few birds of paradise.

Of course "folk" devalues the original authorship, that's the whole point. But it's wrong to say that it devalues the source singers; the folk process means individual creativity operating within a community. Most modern performers are careful to acknowledge the original sources.