On the one hand, I'm uneasy with this sort of categorization, as I'm sure many are, because it implies willy-nilly a certain heirarchy, which is not necessarily helpful, and which at times can be decidedly unhelpful. The term "revivalist", for instance, has the potential to be used to dismiss or denigrate someone who is an inspired artist and a sensitive interpreter of traditional material. As well, the categories suggest a kind of rigidity that isn't always reflected in reality: if I sing a song that I learned directly from a traditional singer, and sing it in the same fashion, am I at that moment a revivalist or a trad. singer myself or something else (successor, etc.)? if the next song I sing I learned from Planxty, am I then a revivalist? what if I don't have any consciousness of a tradition; I'm a pop singer who heard a recording of As I Roved Out and liked it, and adapted it for myself - does "revivalist" seem an accurate term for me? what if I am a traditional singer singing a pop song I learned from the radio - am I at that moment still a traditional singer? or, if I, a traditional singer, add a Planxty song to my repertoire, do I become a revivalist ? and on and on ...

On the other hand, if you are going to discuss these things at all, you have to be able to generalize, which, to generalize, means putting things into some kind of categories. And there may be a need for a term to indicate singers such as Jeff Wesley apparently is, grounded in a local tradition but cognizant of and influenced by popular culture, specifically in the form of the folk revival. The term "successor" is apt in the sense that it implies that "the tradition" ain't what it used to be, but it is not dead either; it has been "succeeded" directly by something like a child that resembles a parent but is quite a different person, subject to influences unknown to the parent. However, is the term appropriate for a situation in which the tradition has not undergone great change? It is my impression that there are places in Ireland, as an example, in which strong singing traditions were maintained through the 20th century to the present, and a young singer in such a tradition could be expected to resent the label "successor", when nothing has been "succeeded"; in other words, the tradition has carried on in its traditional form, so to speak. There is no reason why a young singer in such a tradition should not be simply called something like a "traditional singer".

The weakness of the terms "song carrier" and "tradition bearer" is that, unlike "successor", they don't contain within them any indication of what their point is; that is, they don't indicate in any way how they are distinguishing someone like Jeff Wesley from a strictly "traditional" or "source" singer, whereas "successor", clearly does. Like most jargon, its form might not be terribly important to the cognoscenti, but to the outsider - the casual or accidental reader or participant - it is helpful if the terms have some inherent and relevant meaning.

Whatever term comes to be accepted, I hope it is on the basis of its own appropriateness rather than on what I gather is on occasion some unpleasant interpersonal politics amongst the heavyweights in this field. I think Rod Stradling may be right on this one.