Brace yourselves.

The Oxford English Dictionary doesn't even bother to recognize two distinct definitions, just two nuances of a *single one*:

From the OED:

"folk-song. n. A song originating from the common people; also, a modern imitation of such a song."

The entry was updated in 1972, nearly twenty years after the 1954 definition.

Oxford also gives this example, without comment, from the Listener in 1966:

"That passage from Ecclesiastes which Pete Seeger has turned into a beautiful folk song."

Frankly, the first half of the definition could be considerably tighter - as in the (American) college dictionary that I've already quoted - but I can't argue with the overall description.

Shall we now argue about the authority of the OED? Or simply admit that the songs Jim and others describe actually exist, but that outside of highly specialized contexts the word now *also* has a far wider application?

How wide, we've seen here. And who nowadays doesn't want to be considered one "of the common people"?

PS: Whatever the shortcomings of the OED's definition, the OED and its abridgments are the places a great many journalists and writers refer to for ultimate guidance.

So if the OED says it, millions will follow suit.