I think it's horses for courses - all within one's own range and capabilities.

I sing a lot of American songs in my repertoire - mainly stuff from the 20s and 30s, but also songs from the likes of Jimmie Rodgers, Leon Redbone and Doc Watson. Why do I sing them, rather than songs from my own background? For no other reason than that I like them. I like the melodies and the words, and I like the chords and harmonies. I like the way that they can be adapted for some nice guitar improvisation. I don't feel the same way about other material - English, Scottish, Irish - and don't perform it. (The one exception to my rule is music hall material, which does speak to me, and I can use my own voice there).

So what do I do? Well, what I don't do is try and put on a broad "American" accent - from what part of America would it be, in any case? It just sounds phoney On the other hand, some sort of accentuation is necessary because the language, the dialect, argot - whatever you call it - demands it. The example from Nigel above with Scots song illustrates the point. The closest I get to an American accent is a very mild version of Doc Watson's accent when singing - and then just enough (I hope) to do the song justice.

What's the alternative? Not to sing those songs because I shouldn't? Nuts to that idea. I like 'em and will sing 'em - and the audience can and will make up its mind whether it work or not.

Interestingly, I also sing French songs from time to time. And when I do, I sing with them with as good a French accentuation and pronunciation as I can, having spoken French since I was about 11. No-one's complained yet (well, not to my face, anyway!). Why shouldn't I treat American English in the same way, on the assumption that, in many ways, they are two different languages? Food for thought.