Virginia, I think you've put your finger on something qutie important - the fact that in the list of defining characteristics given, the first one (continuity) is often at odds with the 2nd and 3rd ones.

So at one end of the spectrum we get people who value continuity above all, and want the music to be as faithful to its roots as possible, but who thus risk slowly killing it by freezing it as it was at one moment in time; at the other end we get someone who knows little or nothing about the tradtion, but says, "Here's a folk song I've just written," - which can't be true at this stage but just might be one day (although probably not).

Most of us are somewhere in between these extremes, valuing the tradition but wanting to see it continue to evolve or even have a hand in that process ourselves. The extent to which we look backwards or forwards tends to be what underlies many of the arguments we have about what is or isn't a valid form of folk or traditional expression.

All of this makes me aware that the 1954 definition is the best one that anyone's come up with yet. Any song or tune that doesn't comply at all (i.e. has no link with the past, is never varied but always done exactly the same way, and/or is not taken up and shared by the community) simply isn't folk or traditional, however good or enjoyable it may be.

Oh, and to swerve back on to the topic: the 3 points in that definition all contribute to folk being "our" (i.e. everyone's) music.

Marje