Some of the contributors to this thread have reduced themselves to trolls, arguing for the sake of arguing and being gratuitously abusive (and sometimes making asinine assertions into the bargain). Some, sadly, have responded in kind to such provocation. Some have been mostly standing back and occasionally trying to make constructive contributions. Some have made more frequent but still constructive contributions. I name no names, but it's not hard to see who is in which group, and therefore who deserves respect and who deserves scorn.

I don't think anyone has responded specifically to this part of one of Musket's posts:

' Most "traditional" songs "in the oral tradition" have been copyrighted broadsheet ballads before ever tit trousers tried claiming them as from his or her mother's knee.

'I mentioned Famous Flower of Serving Men as an example I happen to know the details of. it was written by Laurence Price and published under copyright in June 1656. If I could be arsed, I could find plenty more.

'No problem, it remains a folk song. It's just that Jim's silly definition that you are supporting for some illogical reason falls at such hurdles. '

a) The "1954" definition is not Jim's personal one but a widely used one, albeit now recognised as imperfect.
b) It does not exclude songs with known composers.

Laurence Price also started on their way some other songs that would now generally be regarded as folk songs even by those who choose to apply the term narrowly.