Hmmm. George has half-quoted some of what I said. So that I don't get tarred with the Chinese whispers f*lk process of being blamed for what was not the sum total of my 'definition' (which was done off the top of my head in the middle of the night in response to a challenge and I thus now wish I'd given it more thought), I may as well reproduce it:

The tradition' comprises art forms of a distinctive national, ethnic or social group rooted
in that community's lore and customs and passed on orally, aurally or by demonstration
rather than by written/recorded or formal didactic means. It has thus belonged collectively
to that community, rather than to individuals or the state, and tells the history of the
people from their common experience.

In the case of music, its platform has been predominantly the informal social gathering,
the workplace or the home rather than the theatrical stage or concert hall, and pieces
tended to be known by what or who they were about rather than by composer. This is not,
of course, to say that trad musicians have not borrowed and adapted from formal
composers or from other cultures. Obviously they have, and do, which is why the tradition
continues to evolve.

However, three factors in the current revival are forcing ever more rapid and inexorable
changes:

(a) digital archiving, obviously, as mentioned
(b) writing, consciously, 'in the tradition' and registering the result with MCPS/PRS
(c) population mobility resulting in monumental cross cultural influence and collaboration.

It will, thus, never be the same again. 'The tradition' will remain that static body of
information that has been quite literally passed down before the irrevocably altered times
put an end to the centuries-old process (cue Richard Thompson . . . ). What is NOT
traditional, by definition, is a recently composition of known origin. Even if you call it The
White Hare.



NB No reference works were harmed (or even consulted) in the concoction of this
definition.