I think the "folk process" works in fairly small steps normally. That is, a performer may alter one word in the lyrics, or add a couple of flourishes to the tune. And the next one might keep those changes, or he/she might add a little more of their own etc. All along the way, it is likely that none of the variants would be thought of as "original". yet the finished product can differ markedly from where the process kicked off. It's a little like evolution.

And then, you have bolder attempts at original treatment - folk rock was one such, for example - where originality is starkly obvious, sought after, and can attract some while it grates with others. This approach is more akin to mutation, and the end result may be viable or not - the risk is greater.

In music where artistic contribution is paramount, originality is hailed and applauded. But in folk music artistic contribution is not the be-all and end-all; continuation, preservation and passing-on are equally important, and originality plays a lesser role therefore in folk music.

As sonmgwriter, I strive for originality - because I don't want to make the same points the same way that others have already done before me; I want to add something. As a singer of a traditional song in a singaround, I may add a little flourish (or not), but my emphasis there is to nourish and preserve the song.

Yet there can be exceptions in both (they are exceptions, mind you): As a songwriter, occasionally I may mimic a tune or a style, or a manner of phrasing, to make a point or to conjure up some traditional images. And conversely, as an arranger of a traditional song, I may bring in unusual instruments or beats or riffs, in an attempt to "modernise" and make the song more palatable to contemporary ears, or (as is the case with "A-beggin' I will go") to make the point that the lyrics and the tune are timeless and can withstand modern treatment without loss of integrity.