This discussion puts my in mind of the blind men's discussion of the elephant, including their being rude to each other about their respective opinions.

Most of the assertions are true, from the respective viewpoints of the people making them, but those viewpoints are different.

I'm minded to add my three ha'p'orth and hope that I'm not muddying the water.

"Folk" is only one of innumerable terms that are used in a narrow sense in a specialist context and in a wider sense by the man in the street. It has often been remarked that "Buffalo Bill never saw a buffalo". Correct, if you apply a zoologist's meaning of buffalo, but also ridiculous.

Jim seems (if I'm not misinterpreting) to be saying that, to become a folk song, a song has not merely to be taken up by others besides its original creator but to be taken up by many others in a community. What about rare ballads only ever collected from one or two singers, such as "William and Lady Marjorie" (as sung by Joe Rae, Gutcher on here) or King Orfeo? Do they not qualify?

Also that "anybody can identify with the situations they throw up in some way or other" as Jim, with his asbestos experience, can relate to Pete Smith's aniline. There's no need for such specific personal experience; we only need to be able to relate to the protagonists as human beings. Consider all the ballads about kings, lords and ladies, those about sibling murders (The Two Sisters, Lucy Wan, etc) and those with talking birds.

Loose usage of the term "folk" can indeed cause confusion and uncertainty about what one will hear in a "folk club". But you need only attend a particular club once to find out, because mostly the same people will be there next time singing the same kind(s) of material. According to whether you like most of what you hear or not, you know whether it's worth going again. (And, as evidenced by some of the recent postings in this thread, what some people will eagerly go back for more of sends other people running. That's down to personal taste.) In recent years I have attended three clubs. I know pretty well what I can expect to hear at each of them; which is why I go to one often and the others only when there is a particular reason.

As for the folk process being impossible in this day and age: I have heard people sing songs by MacColl and Tawney with some changes from the original words, albeit minor ones. And what about Dylan's making new songs out of existing ones (both traditional ones and recent ones such as The Patriot Game)? Whether we happen to like his remakes or not, he was certainly carrying out an ancient process.

Which has a better claim to being a folk song: a modern song in a more-or-less traditional idiom, such as one of Tawney's or MacColl's, performed unaccompanied or with a simple backing; or a song that's been around for hundreds of years accompanied by an umpteen-piece band who play for twice as long as the singer sings the words, and half drown the words when (s)he is singing them? I know which I personally PREFER to listen to, but that's a different question.