"And yet a few posts earlier you insisted that a definition was required if we were to preserve and grow it."
As a singer, I have a loose definition that makes sure that people who turn up to hear folk songs will hear them or songs based on folk syles - that was always the case with principled (as distinct from the minue few purist) clubs
Someone who turns up to hear 'The Flying Cloud' is going to be a little pissed off to be given Jarvis Cocker-alike sounds if they have a modicum of taste (and vise versa, of course)
My need for a tighter definition comes when I am writing or talking about the songs, especially as I am now interested in them as our social history carriers
Nobody turns up to a classical music recital is going to be too happy if they are given jazz instead - why the **** shouldn't the same apply to a folk club - isn't it worthy of that level of integrity ?
You no longer have the excuse that the 'anything-goes' approach works - the lubs ar bombing
In my opinion, this is because nobody knows what they will hear anymore, and the standard of what they are given has steadily declined

WE have a permanent definition and have had since '54 - it needs re-visiting, but it has worked for over a half century and nobody has come up with an alternative so far
If someone asked me where they could find a substantial represtitive collectiion of Folk Song, I would send them to The Penguin Books, or the Singing Island, or Greig Duncan, or Kennedy's British Folk Song collection, or Sharp/Karpeles - or the many and varied collections that have been coming out for over 100 years
Thare are as many articles, and analyses to satisfy anybody interested on any level