Amos is of course right about language. When a new song has someone from another time or place talking, they ought to use language which fits and doesn't jar. And the narrative language around them shouldn't jar either. It's a matter of taste - I don't think rigorously getting the language exactly right is essential.

It's not a matter of creating a perfect forgery. Indeed, if a song could have been written back then, why not sing a song that was written back then instead? But writing a song about the past is more than just recreating the past. We see historical incidents in a different way, because of who we are and when we live, and I think we should feel free to use this in a song. If we are writing about slavery times, we'll see things differently from the way people would then. If we're writing about the Easter Rising, we'll be carrying within us the knowledge of what happened afterwards. What we write today can bring out aspects of the past that wouldn't have been seen at the time - and it can also say or imply things about the present which need a bit of distance to get into perspective.

The other thing is, I think, we should never feel that writing a new song in the tradition must mean that we can only write about things that happened in the past, in the language of the past. New songs can be written about things that happen today, using the old tricks of the trade, and using the language of today. That happens all the time in living traditions, for example in Ireland. And such songs grow out of the tradition, and belong in the tradition. Whether they survive is another matter, partly depending on whether they are good songs - though it's a mistake to think that all good songs survive, there are so many other factors involved.