The section of dialogue quoted above by Pseudonymous, headed: '9. IN FRONT OF AN AUDIENCE', contains no 'leading questions' at all, as far as I can see. For an interviewer to ask a singer unused to performing in front of any kind of an audience how he reacts to a folk festival crowd is a perfectly sensible question. It is WP, not the interviewer, who brings up the the idea of 'seeing' the action of a song.

This is probably the most elaborate and obsessively pursued troll thread I've witnessed in all my years on Mudcat. The OP appears to believe that cutting and pasting a few pieces from Mustrad, then trying to throw doubt on other people's work by lobbing in vague and unsubtantiated accusations of 'inconsistency', 'conjecture', 'bias', etc., constitutes 'research'. There a lot wrong with Dave Harker's work, but Harker is F. R. Leavis compared with this individual. Watching him/her waggling a sagging stick of rhubarb in futile challenge to genuine researchers like Jim Carroll and Mike Yates is like witnessing one of those BBC 'debates' between a distinguished climate scientist with a lifetime of experience and an ignorant shouter with a political agenda.

"I now am trying to fit in with the level of discussion on this site (as per eg Brian Peters)."

I always try to remain polite on Mudcat, but the sheer volume of misinformation here, and the Quixotic fanaticism with which the agenda has been pursued, has tested even my patience. The remark about 'The Pardon industry' is one of the most ludicrous I've ever seen on Mudcat, and was the last straw, I'm afraid.