Bill, have you considered that you have just adopted a more limited definition than your colleagues? You can rail against the rest of the world to your heart's content, but it sounds to me like you're in the minority on this, and will continue to be. If you really don't want to shell out your hard-earned money to hear people who play "songs written in the last 5 years, in a style and with subject matter [you] don't care for," perhaps you should pay more attention to the advertised content of these performances -- who the performers are and what they are known for doing -- rather than just relying on the word "folk" to guide you, in the hopes that everyone else will adopt your narrow interpretation of the word.

The self-ordained professors' tongues may declare that they know what folk music is, but I would hardly expect the larger folk music community -- which tends to be a pretty independent-minded bunch -- to meekly accept the pronouncements of the "experts". Ironically, the definition of the term "folk music" will continue to be determined by the folk process -- people collectively deciding what the words mean to them -- rather than by the academics and "official" authorities. It seems that the people have spoken, and in general they prefer a more inclusive definition. Fortunately for me, I like it that way.