I'm having real difficulty understanding this argument - (I mean the musicalogical one).

I agree that there is a spectrum of communication you'll encounter in the singing of songs.

At one end there is almost a kind ot telepathy. A sharing of ideas, a level of spiritual communiciation between the singer and the listener, which imparts far more emotion and information than the mere words and tune would suggest - and, yes, this has nothing to do with technical ability, tunefuless or quality of voice.

Likewise there is another end, where you just get the words and the tune - and this also has nothing to do with 'quality.'

But which end of the spectrum you encounter when someone sings to you is down to a lot more factors than just how the singer learned the song, surely?

The technical skill of the singer, the depth of ownership he feels for the song, his ability to visualise and empathise with the story, and reflect all this in his delivery - plus your own mood and personality, your own preconceptions of the song, the situation you're listening in - and many other factors will all influence how well your two minds are tuned into eachother, and therefore how much you enjoy the show (even if it's at someone kitchen table).

You can get the 'good' end from a poor singer, a great singer, a new song, an old song, a collected song, a source singer - in fact anyone, if that communion is there. And you can fail to get it from all those as well if it isn't.

It has nothing to with performance per se, but how well that perfomance fits into where you, personally, happen to be.

To suggest that 'traditional singers' - I prefer the term 'source singers' (because that is a clear definition that we all agree on, I think!) are somehow intrinsically better at getting inside a song because they learned it orally (supposedly) than anyone who learns it from them (presumably from a recording or a book) seems a little strange to me.

MacColl could definately do it, as you say, Jim, and so can dozens of contemporary revivalists (is that the correct term?) such as our own Brian here. And it doesn't matter if the song is new or old. The singer either has sympathy, and is prepared to go to the edge, to follow the journey of the song, even if the road is dangerous, or he isn't. How theatrical or understated or whatever the singing may be is not the issue, it's how well that performance (for it surely always is one, by definition) clicks with you, in that situation, at that moment.

There is an entirely understandbale romance around source singers, their role as song carriers, their 'hotline' back into history, and their humility as well as their ability to make songs work for their own audience (which is what was happeneing at the moment of collection, of course). And we should indeed respect and celebrate these lovely folks' essential and vital contribution.

But at the end of the day there are two things that matter most: The song (for which we have to thank the writer and the editors over the years, including perhaps the source himself), which may touch you or not touch you according to personal taste, and the performance - which gain may touch you or not, according to personal taste.

If you get the double touch, then that's wonderful, and what it's all about. But it can happen any time any place, by anyone of any ability or background, whether they wrote the song, heard it from a chum, got it off a record, at Great Grandma's deathbed, on the radio, or were given it by a passing minstrel.

Am I not right, or am I wrong?

Tom