Checking into the forum after an extended absence. I like CarolC's definition, that the tradition may be active even if the specific tune is of more recent vintage. This definition is more meaningful to me than the more rigid definitions that are based on our educated guesses about how a specific tune may have been transmitted in the past.

As long as we're quoting Webster's (a more common reference for Americans than the OED), and as long as we acknowledge that this thread has some bearing on the whole "what is folk?" issue, there are a couple of other definitions worth noting:

folk (adjective, secondary definition): being a form of contemporary music written in imitation of and having qualities of traditional folk music such as stanzaic form, refrain, and simplicity of melody

folksinger: one who sings folk songs or sings in a style associated with folk songs

To futher muddy the waters, I think that in other fields there is some recognition that the pace of change in the modern world is much more rapid than in olden times. It seems to me that, when everything else goes faster, the factors that distinguish one "generation" from the next also change more quickly. So to me it seems reasonable that the development of traditions also happens more quickly in the modern world.

None of this does much for Bill D in his quest to have fixed definitions for the words we use, but I think that is a losing battle anyway.

I will now crawl back under my stone.