As an American, I'm more familiar with the collecting work of the Lomaxes, et al, than with Cecil Sharpe. But I can still have an opiion, quite possibly valid, about his project, or that of any such pioneering collector, in any country at any time, but especially during the era when recording technology first became available

I have the general impression that this kind of project always, inevitably, would have to have involved some barrier to complete communication between the educated and sophisticated collector and the less worldly subjects. Whether one portrays this problem as crippling and even hostile, on the one hand, or virtually insignificant on the other, depends almost entirely on one's own preconcenptions (political opinion, class origin, etc.)

I think that the actual songs and performances that were collected contitute the most important contribution, and that any accompanying subtext (theory, interpretation) is certainly interesting, important for learning as much as possible about the collector and his intentions and strategies, but surely to be taken with a grain of salt, especially as the years go on.

I have no problem with those who adhere to a narrower definition of "folk music" than I do. On the contrary ~ I fully recognize their right to mark off a given well-defined bit of musical territory and to concentrate their efforts upon its study. All well and good, and in fact, truly deep study is only possible by concentration upon a relatively restricted database.

I simply refuse to seriously consider any argument that my own interest in a wider field is "wrong." I try not to be offended, because many of those who hold to tighter restrictions than I find tolerable often have very interesting and valid things to say, and I often enjoy applying their insights to subject matter that they themselves would never consider.

My one "bugaboo" or "hobbyhorse," something I can't help but repeat, is my utter impatience with the assumption that songs and styles that were accidentally current at the time Mr, Collector arrived ~ with his notebooks or wire recorder or reel-to-reel tape gizmo or whatever ~ that these particular versions and approaches to these particular sets of lyrics and melodies are somehow sacrosanct.

How can we possibly know that the folksong of, say, 1921 (or 1892, or whenever, if discussing written rather than recorded research) may not have been entirely different from what was being sung and played in 1903, or 1850, 1690, or whenever? Why should the state of things at the time of a given researcher's arrival be any more deserving of respect than what's happenning today?