> how is your definition of any meaning, much less value?

You'll have noticed that I'm not urging a particular definition, though personally I'm very partial to the 1954 def because it describes English-language songs that I'm interested in. And that, besides pedantry, is the only reason. Frankly, I'm not much bothered by other points of view. Really, there's nothing of importance at stake here.

But this thread seems to boil down to two questions:

1. What is the "proper" definition of a folksong?

2. What makes it so?

3. How do we get everyone to agree on this?

Issue 3 is easy: we can't. andel's "Messiah" is obviously out, but the limits on what is called a "folksong" are broad, including the "I dunno what it is, but I know what I like" (showing once again the sentimental *value* placed on the label alone).

As to issue 1: there is no single, "proper" definition. There are "conservative" or "narrow" definitions, like 1954, which focus on a particular kind of song - a kind which even in 1954 had *almost no remaining popularity* in the English-speaking world except as taught to schoolchildren (with a mixed reception from the children), or as interpreted by recording artists, which discourages much trad-style "variation," not to mention "trad style."

But the interpretation of what is a "folksong" by people who "like folksongs" (everyone on this thread, for example) is much more personal, especially when people feel compelled to get some of their favorites to fit. Is "Sixteen Tons" a folksong? You can explain rationally why you think so, but you won't get general agreement. You'll probably get agreement on "John Henry," but then people will begin to name their favorite *performance*, which probably doesn't sound much like a field-collected performance sung in Alabama in 1905. Is the slick modern performance as much a "folksong" as the old, rural, unaccompanied one? Another question that quickly leads nowhere.

What is or is not a "folksong" is just not a provable, objective judgment (which addresses issue 2). Saying "I like folksongs" is like saying "I like books." People will have a vague idea of what you mean. If they ask, you'll have to explain. This is no one's fault, it's simply one way that meanings develop.

My desk dictionary defines "folk song" as first, a 1954-style song ("originating among the people...passed on by oral tradition...several versions") and second as "a song of similar character written by a known composer."

"Of similar character" covers a lot of possibilities, many of them entirely subjective. (How similar to a traditional song, really, is an introspective "folksong" like "Both Sides Now"?) And not even serviceable definitions will quite fit every personal interpretation that's appeared on this thread, interpretations that people also insist are the only "right" or logical ones. You can accept the authority of a dictionary or encyclopedia or not, your choice, it's a free country.

People who really want a "proper" (i.e., authoritative) definition of "folksong" can peek in their own dictionaries, where they'll find similar (though not quite identical) definitions. Writers may do this, but millions of others won't, because they have minds of their own and aren't too interested in being "accurate."

The first definition has the value of focus and clarity; it also has the weakness of applying mainly to academic discussions. The second has the value of explaining what most people now generally mean when they use the word "folksong."

Yet the specific songs they have in mind, and why, may be hard to guess at.