On a point of information, I should inform those of you who have never actually read Sharp's English Folk Song: Some Conclusions that those conclusions were based on only a short (though pioneering, and very intensive) study of one part of England only, and that Sharp himself made it clear that they were provisional conclusions only, and subject to re-assessment in the light of new information. Had he lived longer, we might have other conclusions to consider.

He also did not say that folk song 'had to be anonymous', and I do wish people, some of whom at least ought to know better, would stop claiming that he did. The point he was trying to make was that original authorship was essentially irrelevant; it is what happens to a song after it has been written that determines whether or not it can be considered a 'folk' song.

Unfortunately, Sharp is always being mis-quoted and mis-interpreted. Most objections in discussions of this kind to what he said seem to be, in reality, objections from people who have not read what he said to mis-representations of what he said made by people who either have not read what he said, or have not understood it.

The problem with discussions of this sort is that people come to them with very different understandings of the term 'folk music'. Some prefer the careful definitions formulated by people who have studied the subject in depth (the 1954 formula has, you may be sure, been subject to continual re-assessment and modification over the years; though it is still a useful starting point for anyone genuinely interested in learning, and understanding, more) while others prefer the more recent and more elastic terms promulgated largely by the major record companies.

In the same way, some will understand a 'ballad' as a narrative song of the kind studied by Child; others will think of any romantic song recorded by Frank Sinatra or Tom Jones. That's the difficulty; without agreeing at the start what we are actually talking about, much of the debate will continue at cross purposes and achieve the same results it did last time, and the time before; not very much.