Jim Carroll
"I said that the word "folk" was already in use with a much broader meaning. It still is."
"they chose a term for it which was already in use with a much broader meaning. "

More misrepresentation.What I actually said was - "Unfortunately (and for perfectly valid reasons), they chose a term for it which was already in use with a much broader meaning..

And I said that Paolo Alto chose nothing - the term 'folk song' had been in use since the beginning of the 20th century" - the conference merely accepted that term as being the functional one- the term 'folk song' was well established by the time '54 came along.
You might have "the decency and honesty"to address that fact.

Bit of a smokescreen there, Jim. That's not the subject under discussion. I'll only say that Maud Karpeles didn't seem to agree. From the 1954 "definition" -
At the Annual Conference of the International Folk Music Council held in London two years ago we attempted to define folk music,
but were unable to devise a definition which completely satisfied all the members.

The issue is whether some sections of the people who use the word folk had been doing so, for totally sincere reasons, since the 1930s and that this lead to the modern usage which is now in conflict with the 1954 definition usage. It was not an "aggressive takeover" but a parallel development.

Why do you have to be so ******* aggressive in your responses?
If I am mistaken, I am mistaken - I am not a liar.

Oh dear, Jim. What's to be done with you? The "If you disagree with what I have to say, have the decency and honesty to to address what I have to say and not make things up." line was lifted intact from one of your posts attacking me. Taken with you calling me an "arrogant little pratt" earlier in the thread, I don't think you're in a position to accuse me of being aggressive.