I have a friend who spends hours learning songs from recordings.   He faithfully re-creates exactly what he hears, and gets disappointed with himself if he forgets bits of licks etc when performing these songs. This is because he has an idea of the song being the recording and the recording being the song.   Although his guitar playing is complicated and impressive I do not want him to join my traditional group. He says he can learn all the stuff from recording it, etc, but all this shows is that he does not understand folk music.   

Let's take the Beatles song "When I'm 64".   I performed it with him once and he expressed disappointment that I did not play all of the fill-in bits on my fiddle exactly as they sound as played on other instruments on the original recording.   To my mind I was listening to a song and doing things that I considered appropriate to the performance of it.   To his mind what I was doing was just not right.

A song passes into the folk tradition when it distills down to its essence, taking its life and its power from its words and its melody. Then people can take it and create all sorts of different and valid interpretations of it.

Sidewinder - you on the other hand have a fairly subjective and intepretative approach to the rules of grammar. I hope that you can understand proper English, as well as your peculiarly indiosyncratic version of it.