While part of me appreciates the more academic approach Richard just presented, I don't feel compelled to have a set of rules governing me wanting to sit down and listen to some music. Its like someone saying I can't watch baseball in 2008 because I never saw Joe Dimaggio play therefore the game is different today, or I can't watch a movie because I haven't seen a Cecil B DeMille film, therefore I lack some sort of fundamental understanding of cinema. I do fully support traditional music, and not just of the British Isles. I am deeply interested in traditional music around the world, be it Colombia or Uzbekistan or Mali. But just like sports, and just like cinema, and literature, and art, and technology, I think there is an evolution that must be allowed to move ahead. Some could say, the very first time a piece of traditional music was recorded the music irrevocably changed. Some could say the very first time a song was transcribed in a book, the music was irrevocably changed. Some could say the very first time a bunch of academics assembled at some conference to discuss the state of folk music the music irrevocably changed. I don't know. I'll take your point about it not being a matter of liking it or disliking something, but as neither a singer, or an instrumentalist (yet!) I just know that it is something to be enjoyed, and I venture to say that most of the source singers that we all know and love, wouldn't have given a toss about what someone at some conference said about it how it should be defined. I'm a firm believer in knowing where something comes from, giving credit where credit is do, citing sources and all of that good stuff that traditional musicians do. But as was recounted in the Swarb box set a few years back, Swarb once said to Martin Carthy-You can do anything you want to music, it doesn't mind. A pint of beer for everyone concerned though-can anyone say this Friday night in NY city for my 40th birthday?!!!

Slainte