Wow! So Christie 'invented' lots of his stuff? Why is it therefore 'dodgy'? It's neither poisonous, nor explosive. Surely a good song is good and a bad song isn't good? Why do serious scholars still subscribe to the notion of a parthenogenic origin for folk songs? People write songs, sometimes, due to the intellectual environment in which they lived, they felt the need to conceal this fact. It doesn't surely make the song less valid as a song? If Mick, who started this thread finds something of value in Christie then that's good. There's certainly a lot of Nic Jones' material in Christie which suggests that far from being dodgy, its a fruitful source for inspiration. Or am I missing something here?