Jim I understand your position, I really do. And I would indeed support your stance under my real name (not least because my career depends upon it!), but there's a very good reason why I'm forced to conclude that it will probably be 'your camp' - rather than the people who perhaps don't understand how important that pure definition might be, and are thus the eroders of your term - that will eventually have to find a new phrase to descibe the thing you now call 'traditional folk music'.

And it is this:

When the term Traditional was first applied to folk song and music it was not unique to that definition. It was not a noun, it was an adjective - and a very general and commonplace adjective too. (The noun, 'THE tradition,' came later - precisely becuase the adjective was already proving inadequate as a descriptor).

At that time, the word Traditional could ALSO be applied to lace making, archery, Masonic rites, domestic decoration, marriage ceremonies, cuts of beef, marmalade, and the manufacture of perry, mungo and pig iron.

Amongst other things.

And the word 'Traditional' continued to have a meaning to millions of people who had never even thought about folk music, let alone listened to it, or tried to understand the processes which your gang believed that the term was describing.

So when, with the revival, people re-encounterd this thing you call The Tradition, they were perfectly within their rights to make the assumptions which many have expressed in this thread.

You see; those who feel the word descibes an on-going process, (which did NOT stop with the collection of songs which had heretofore only been known in remote rural locations and had arrived there purely by aural and oral means) are in a massive majority.

A MASSIVE majority.

Because they include ALL English-speaking people, including those who don't give a morrish-shtick for folksong.

Which is a LOT ot folks.

And they ALL know what the proper, dictionary definition of the word 'Traditional' is. They all know it has little or nothing to do with music. It's entirely general - and their use of it is entirely correct in the wider grammatical and syntactical terms of the English language.

This may be unfortunate for those of us who want the word only to refer to a cultural process and a musical catalogue which existed in certain communities between about 1550 and 1890. But it's just tough, I'm sorry to say.

You see, when the term Traditional was first applied to folk music it was entirely appropriate.

But time has shown it to be lacking. If only they'd used a new and unique word!

Remember - I'm ONLY talking about language here.

I have shelf full of books too. And I'm not reaching for the tippex. Yet. But ask me about this is 50 years. (Well, you won't need to)!

So.

To answer your points:

1 Define tradition (references to your sources would be welcome).

There are three basic defitintions: 1) Yours, 2) Solder Boy's (which concurs with perhaps 75% of the population of the Atlantic, American and Australian islands), and 3) whatever legal definition applies in your parish which may be the same as 1) or 2) or not.


2 Give us examples of which songs you would like to take the place of those currently understood as traditional.

None at all. You're missing my point COMPLETELY!

3 Explain what makes them fit in to your - and (as definition relies on general understanding and agreement) our definition of your understanding of traditional.

Again - this challenge is irellevant to the point I'm making. I'm talking about language, and language only. Songs and tunes are nice, or less nice, according to personal opinion. And that's all.

4 Advise as to how we are going to persuade all the many hundreds working in the field of traditional music who, in their ignorance, fully accept the current use of the term, to now switch over to your new definition: (what is it that has been suggested so far as a substitute; collected - waiting to be collected – source music)?

I haven't a clue; I'd much rather the other lot changed their term! BUT as there are only 'many hundreds' in your camp, and many millions in the other, I think i know what will happen.

5 Suggest why I should walk away from forty years experience, (which includes thirty years of collecting work among er… source – collected - waiting to be collected - singers) at the behest of somebody who has not had the courtesy to identify themself so that I might judge whether their efforts (as a middlingly well known performer) fits in with our estimation of what traditional songs or singing is going to sound like should I accept your argument.

I'm not saying for one minute you should walk way from anything. I'm merely suggesting that we need to separate the stuff you're taking about from everything else (as you said, the old from the newly-made). So that writers don't get ripped off. So that good material flourishes. So that the heritage remains available. So that the general public finally appreciates how important this stuff is.

But if we want that to happen we can't keep using the same word for two things.

I know you understand because your understanding informs the subtext of all your posts.

The ony issue issue is; Who changes?

Time will tell.

Me? I've been to William Hill and placed my fiver.