I agree with Shimrod above - when people criticise "labelling", they're conveniently forgetting that every word is a label (well, nouns are anyway). If you're not going to label things, you can't really say anything useful about them. And I also agree that it's often just intellectual laziness that gives rise to that attitude.

Cristian, I think Howard's post there gives you a flavour of the difference between UK and US concepts - as you're studying in the UK, I imagine you'll prefer to stick with UK views, but it's useful to be aware of the differences between our cultures, and of course there are lots of crossover influences in both directions.

As for the oral/aural tradition being irreparably broken, Mary - don't despair, I think it carries on. I have scores of songs in my head that I only ever learned by hearing them, and I'm sure you do too. I may have written the words down at some point to help store them, and even looked up some extra verses or missing lines, but I recall many tunes (both for singing and for playing) that I've never seen written down and never heard recorded. Session tunes get passed around aurally in vast numbers - occasionally you get a request for "the dots", but much of the learning of tunes is aural. I often look up a written score and use it to refresh my memory, but I learn as much by hearing other players and singers as from printed or recorded sources.

The context of the singing and playing is, of course, different from in the past - it's more structured, and less connected with ordinary social activities in the wider community. And the extra means we have at our disposal for searching, storing and retrieving songs and tunes give us access to a vastly wider repertoire than our ancestors had - I think we're very lucky in some ways. I also agree that it's important to treasure the old recordings and written sources, as a way of enriching our understanding and interpretation of the music of our tradition.

Marje