Hi Scrump,

"The question of anonymity of authorship is interesting, because what would happen if somebody uncovered documentary evidence that (say) Shakespeare had written a song that had hitherto been regarded as "Anon". Would that mean that a song previously regarded as 'folk' would suddenly be disqualified? Cecil Sharp would have said so, presumably."

Yes, I think that this is a very interesting question and it is my personal opinion that Shakespeare's song would still qualify as a folk song (I like to think that I would have the courage to argue this point with C# - but I'd probably 'wimp out'! "Of course you're right, Mr Sharp - you are, after all a leading authority - sorry, THE leading authority!").

As for moving on from the 1954 definition, I suspect that this definition is still correct IN ESSENCE if not in every detail. In the same way we may have moved on since Darwin's day but that still doesn't negate the pioneering work that he did on the Theory of Evolution.

As for "blinkered bigots", yes, there may be a few of those around - on both sides of the argument! You may think, Scrump, that I am a blinkered bigot (?) and I do admit that I was rather churlish towards you in a previous thread (for which I sincerely apologise). The trouble is that I am rather passionate about the subject of traditional music and can get carried away when discussing it. I also think that, in this forum, if you don't make your points 'robustly' you can get ignored. And, let's face it, in real life I am a sober, law-abiding, upright citizen but here I can get away with being just a bit anarchic (Shimrod is, if you like, my wicked alter-ego - and he's beginning to get out of control - AAAAHHHHH!!!). If I get a bit outrageous, now and then, just ignore me