We have been over this time and again. Firstly, it is impossible to define any genre of music, the best you can get is some kind of yardstick to compare it with and see which is the nearest fit.

This is not a question about music but about language. Language, especially English, is flexible and a word can have different meanings or nuances of meaning depending on the context. In general speech "folk music" has a far wider meaning and is used to encompass almost any acoustic music. We may not find that very helpful, but that is how people use the word.

"Traditional" also may have a wider meaning in general speech. We talk of "traditional" Christmas carols, but many of them are not traditional in the sense we use the word on here, and many have known and acknowledged composers. Likewise it may be "traditional" to sing "You'll never walk alone" at football matches, but that doesn't necessarily make it a folk song.

In any specialist discussion group where the differences are more relevant, not to say more important, we can expect words to be used in a more precise manner. Every specialism needs its own jargon. What I find continually disappointing that on Mudcat we still seem to be unable to agree how to use words in a more precise, technical manner.

There are a number of reasons for this, whether it is Jim's refusal to acknowledge that language has changed and "folk" is no longer synonymous with "traditional", those who reject or sneer at the 1954 definition (failing to understand that it isn't a definition at all, merely a yardstick). or those who have a vested interest in having their own compositions recognised within an accepted genre. There is also the difference between American and British usage, along with different cultural assumptions. Nevertheless, it would make discussions easier if we could agree on a shared terminology, and might avoid these interminable and unresolvable "What is folk?" trheads.