Airymouse:

The 1954 definition doesn't allow for new songs to enter the folk music lexicon. It condemns the art form to a slow death.

The first sentence isn't really true, although I'd admit it makes it difficult. But even if it was true, why would the second one follow? I've sung about 100 traditional folk songs and would probably recognise about 100 more, and that's scratching the surface of a drop in a bucket - there's loads of stuff out there, enough to keep anyone going for a lifetime. Is the music of Bach condemned to a slow death? (Must be very slow if so - there haven't been any new examples since 1750.)

Bert:

I find that the 1954 definition is somewhat over restrictive; I sing many songs which I introduce as folk songs which don't fit that definition.

In that case the question is what you'd lose by not referring to thos songs as folk songs. (Just as a thought experiment, not a practical suggestion.) I think an awful lot of the confusion around the 'folk' label is sustained by people thinking 'folk is good, what I sing is good, therefore what I sing is folk'. I take the view that when I sing a Child ballad I'm singing a folksong, when I sing the Ballad of Accounting I'm not.

Musket (and others):

If absolutely any song you care to mention can be called a folk song, what's the point of using the word 'folk'? The only advantages that I can see it gives you are (a) being able to tell yourself you're just as 100%-folkie as you ever were and (b) being able to sneak new songs into traddie venues. And - with all due respect to Dave Burland - why would you want to do either of those things?