Not doing too well for answers – is it because there are none, or is it something I said?
Anyway – try, try, try again!!!
One of the main reasons for much of the (IMO) muddled thinking surrounding traditional singing is the (also IMO) mistaken belief that traditional singers did not discriminate between the different types of song in their repertoire; this was not our experience in a great many cases. That singers sang many different types of song had no more significance that the fact that if anyone was to trawl through our record collection, as well as Harry Cox, Sam Larner, Mary Anne Carolan……. they would also find Frank Sinatra, Maria Callas, Ella Fitzgerald….. (and a couple of Count John hidden carefully away somewhere).
Blind Travelling woman Mary Delaney, one of the most stylish singers we met, and having one of the largest repertoires of traditional songs, around 22, could easily have doubled that with non-traditional material, mainly C&W, but persistently refused to sing them for us saying, "They're not what you want". She told us that she only learned them because "That's what the lads ask for in the pub." She also constantly complained "The new songs have the old ones ruined."
Mary described all her traditional songs as "My daddy's songs", even though she had learned no more than a dozen of them from her father. She also described them as "the old songs", though ironically she counted among these, Travellers own compositions, some of which must have been made within five years of our recording them. It appears that 'old' and my daddies' songs were a classification of a type of song rather than a reference to their age.
We constantly found that this 'categorisation' of different types of song was fairly common among the singers we met, particularly with singers with large repertoires and those from communities that still had, or had relatively recently lost their singing traditions.
Walter Pardon had hours worth of tape to say on the subject He not only differentiated and categorised his songs (and was doing so as early as 1948), but was very articulate on what those differences where.   
Some of this can be accessed on the article wot I rote for the Enthusiasms section of Musical Traditions entitled 'By Another Name'.
The point of all this being that one of the vital ingredients of all this is the role of the source singer. The ones we met certainly had a take on their songs and their role in their communities and a far greater understanding of their position and functions within their communities – far greater than is often displayed by many revivalists I have met.
None of the above any way proves or disproves the present (interminable) argument, but another aspect of some of the statements made concern me.
The claims that the oral tradition, folk traditions….. whatever, are the result of sloppy, agenda-driven research don't really interest me – none of them come with any evidence whatever to back them up (though we are told by one of these boyos that there is too much evidence for him to be able to give it – so he doesn't bother!)
It leaves me to wonder where the Harry Coxs, Sam Larners, Phil Tanners and all the other singers who have given their time and experience to allow us to access the songs, feature in all this.
Our source singers, have been given the shitty end of the stick one way and another from certain quarters of the revival, and from some researchers and collectors, it must be said. They have been patronised, marginalised, their opinions have been ignored or not even been sought. Some collectors have ripped them off (one particular individual made a career of it) by paying them an insulting pittance   (if anything at all) for the commercial use of their material. Once their songs have been taken down, quite often the singers role in passing them on has been ignored – how many times have we heard of Martin Carthy's 'Barley Straw' or Christie Moore's 'Well Below The Valley, or Nick Jones', Peter Bellamy's…. and so on (not blaming the singers concerned in any way; it's just the way things seem to be in today's revival.) One thing that I do find stomach heaving is the insulting way the older singers are often referred to; old groaners, past their sell-by date, not worth a listen…..; one of the combatants here did his bit of 'granny-slapping not too long ago on one thread.
And how does this concern us here?
I have always believed that our source singers were not just the carriers of our traditional songs, but also their makers, custodians and re-maker. Now, it would appear, we have an attempt to Snopake them out of these role altogether by denying them these functions.
Are we now to regard the likes of Tom Lenihan and Mary Delaney no different than Shane McGowner and Amy Winehouse (but far less rich and famous of course)?
And our folk songs – do we now have to lump them (as has been suggested, with 24 Hours to Tulsa and Leader of the Pack) – or even (as has also been proposed) with "Blues, Shanties, Kipling, Cicely Fox Smith, Musical Hall, George Formby, Pop, County, Dylan, Cohen, Cash, Medieval Latin, Beatles, Irish Jigs and Reels, Scottish Strathspeys, Gospel, Rock, Classical Guitar, Native American Chants, Operatic Arias and even the occasional Traditional Song and Ballad".
Yours in anticipation,
Jim Carroll