"There's nothing wrong with the 1954 definition if it floats your boat.   It is irrelevant otherwise."
Nope - wrong again - until someone comes up with a new one it's what we've got to explain a unique music
You want another - come up with one, persuade others that it is "relevant" and document it - that's what we have had to do.
No definition is "irrelevant" - that's crass.
This music represents the artistic creation of an entire people - centuries of it.
If we are unable to discuss it because a tiny group of folkies can't be arsed to come up with a description for what they do - bit of a shame really, doncha think?
You claim that we are in the minority - wrong again - you have no definable definition, we have, you have no definition, we have, you have no track record, we have - centuries of it, you have no literature, we have - libraries full.
You don't have agreement among yourselves.
It is cultural vandalism to attempt to destroy the identification of the artistic creation of an entire social group/class, in this case the largely agricultural working people.
I grew up being told that people like me never produced anything worthwhile, and we had to go to our betters for our music, our literature, our theatre, paintings...
It turns out that that was not the case; my forbears produced a body of song, music, oral literature that spanned centuries - something to be proud of - not made "irrelevant" at a whim.
Jim Carroll