It depends who you're singing to, and why. Traditional singers did most of their singing to small, even intimate audiences of family, friends, and new acquaintances in taverns, on the road, and elsewhere. Remember, there weren't any radios. All music and singing were "live." And virtually all folk singing other than the blues (a later development) was unaccompanied by instrumenmts.

In that kind of world, the unusual beauty of a particular voice, or the entertainment value of a specially energetic delivery would be a bonus. Listen to traditional singers on recordings and elsewhere, and you'll see that few of them are "good" by pop or other standards.

But they were doing something right. Otherwise, Mudcat wouldn't be happening now.

Except for work songs like sea shanties, most traditional singing took place fairly spontaneously before for "audiences" who were so
interested in the sogn (and often the singer personally) that matters of voice, tone, etc., didn't matter. Many in a folk "audience" were just a few minutes away from performing themselves.

The modern situation, where *almost* nobody sings for other people outside of a church choir, the vast majority are afraid to sing, and virtually no one wants to listen if they do, seems like a fairly recent development. Now the audience is usually separated from the singer/songwriter/performer/recording artist, who's barely more than a name to most of them. He or she has got to be a topnotch entertainer with professional skills. That's what the audience has paid to hear!

Times change. So no, a folk singer didn't have to sing "well" to be appreciated. And yes, if you're going up on stage today, you'd better be good. Very good.