Jim, stating:

"If you are suggesting that 'traditional' singers don't discriminate, but will sing whatever takes their fancy or suits the particular situation, of course you are correct."

it's the academics who often make the subjective distinction.

" This does not mean I do not discriminate between them and use them for different moods or fancies. Nor does it mean I cannot tell the difference between the various types of songs and singing."

Yes the differences are clear.

"If on the other hand, you are saying that traditional singers were unable to tell the difference between say, music-hall, early popular songs, light opera, Sheffield Carols, whatever, I wonder what you base this on."

When it comes to song material, I think everyone can make some distinctions but not always. This would require a certain familiarity and sophistication that many do not have because they haven't had the musical education to make these determinations. Many ot the academic folklorists suffer from musical myopia.

" One of the great problems in assessing the tradition has always been that nobody ever asked the singers what they thought, so we simply don't know who knew, thought, believed what."

I don't agree with this point. Eloquent members of a singing tradition are often able to articulate their role as a carrier. Jean Ritchie is certainly a case in point. She carries her tradition and is knowledgeable and expresses that knowlege well.

Doc Watson can differentiate between the kind of songs that were popular and more traditional and again expresses that well.

Big Bill Broonzy was knowledgeable and communicative as well. He thought that Elvis was a great thing to happen because it opened the doors for traditional blues artists such as himself.

I do agree about pub singing being recent. It is an offshoot of a popularization of music.
The point about drunks sitting around listening to arcane ballads is a good one.

Pete Seeger was a one-man PR firm for introducting traditional music to audiences that were unfamiliar with it. He toured for a year with Sonny Terry so that Sonny could reach audiences. I will argue that Pete is largely responsible for the folk music revival in America because it was through him that we find the Weavers, the Kingston Trio and P P and M.
Many of the pickers from the New York City area were exposed to traditional southern music because of Pete's enthusiasm and promotion.

Now didn't Peggy and Ewan have a similar role along with Lloyd in England?

The idea of a traditional singer would not be even entertained if it hadn't been for these dedicated "revivalists".

The New Lost City Ramblers opened doors for traditional performers in the US as well.

To say that the so-called "revivalist" singers were irrelevant to the appreciation of what we now call "traditional" music just doesn't make sense. Bonnie Raitt traveled with "Sippie" Wallace. Ry Cooder introduced many to traditional blues artists. Rory Block with early blues artists. And one who deserves considerable attention is Josh White who introduced blues to Cafe Society and through him and Pete, Leadbelly (aside from Alan Lomax who promoted him as well). Josh opened the doors for Brownie McGhee and Sonny Terry as well. John Jacob Niles and Richard Dyer-Bennett were highly influential in calling attention to Anglo-American trad singers. Also Susan Reed. It became apparent that through the song material, the focus became where the songs came from. It wasn't all just Top Forty rewrites. The audiences were opened up to dig into the roots.

There can be no interest in traditional music without patting the backs of the revivalists who cared enough about the trad music to want to share it with the public and open the doors for it. Even the academics didn't really get interested until the revival made them review what they knew.

Now we are fortunate to have a rich musical pallette that is not media-driven by those who were exposed to the Revival as performers or audience. We have alternative audiences for all kinds of music and they disregard the programmed pop as representative of their tastes. This includes "traditional" folk music as well.

Alan Lomax didn't get this too well. He railed at what he considered to be the commercialization of folk music but in this he was inconsistent.. He, in one article, lauded the Kingston Trio for their contribution in an early Sing Out! article.

It doesn't make any sense that a notion of so-called "traditional" music just grew out of nothing. The Revival ultimately had to create an interest in it by non-academic audiences who were first introduced to seasoned performers by interpreters.

Frank Hamilton