I am beginning to detect a coming together here. I see nothing fundamentally wrong with what anyone has put in the last 20 or so posts.
If I can just be allowed a bit of pedantry (I'm trying to play devil's advocate just to clarify and hopefully move closer to a consensus). The movement is against using the term 'contemporary folk song': Jim suggests, 'contemporary songs using folk forms and functions' which is a mouthful even if it is a good description. If they are contemporary songs using Jim's description why can we not use for shorthand 'contemporary folk songs'? If not then it still needs a short phrase that can be trotted out.


Once again, off topic, but I can't let the nasty digs pass, Professor Child's collection was 'inclusive' and included a whole lot of material that didn't quite fit his parameters. The same applies to the Roud Index. It tries to be inclusive. If there are some inconsistencies in approach then such has ever been the case when it comes to material like ours. Arguably better to be inclusive than exclusive and upset a whole load of people whose songs were not included for whatever reason.