I am absolutley not saying that anyone's appreciation of music is compromised because they are not themselves musicians or singers, nor am I saying it's inferior. All I am saying is that it is a different way of engaging with music. Moreover, it is one which allows the individual to play a part in shaping and forming the music itself, which a listener, no matter how passionate, is unable to do.

I must confess that I went through a brief period of believing I was continuing the tradition, but I soon realised that was nonsense. I very much doubt that "traditional" singers and musicians thought of "the tradition" in those terms (although there is evidence that some at least distinguished between these songs and those from other sources), and that the idea of "the tradition" is a retrospectively invented term. However the thing it attempts to describe was real enough. We may argue over definitions, boundaries and processes, but somehow out of this has come a body of music with characteristics which are recognisably different from other genres, sufficiently different in my opinion to be worth continuing.

Continuing to perform old music because you recognise and enjoy its qualities is not the same as continuing "the tradition". I also cringe at the notion that our singarounds and folk clubs are somehow perpetuating and replicating some golden age, although I don't think this view is as widely held as is sometimes suggested. And whilst I recognise the value of participation, I also agree that it is often over-valued, as if participation alone is enough and quality is not also important. However sometimes sitting through a ropy performance is the price you pay for music being something a community is actively involved with, rather than it simply being entertainment. Being part of a group of people making music together is undoubtedly a different experience from sitting in an audience, which is not to say that both cannot be electrifying.