I enjoyed that, Suibhne O'Piobaireachd (How DO you pronounce it?). I struggled a bit but persisted and I think I have got the gist of some of it at least.

The 'tradition' is what was collected and is now fixed at a point in time. Revivals have used the tradition as a reference point but not actually added to, or detracted from, that fixed point. The culture from which the tradition was born no longer exists. Using the tradition to define cultural constructs is not, therefore, possible.

Is that OK so far? - I would honestly rather you correct me that let me go on with false assumptions.

If so, could we say that, at some as yet undetermined point in the future, what is termed the tradition will change as the songs reflecting the culture of a particular revival will be collected? At that point do we then have two traditions, the old and new, or do we call the old tradition something else? Do we then end up with arguments that the very songs that people wish to 'occupy' English folk music with become the tradition? Someone in Mudcat v 11.7 (the revenge) will announce that songs of Seth Lakeman, The Oyster Band and Mumford and Sons are for old hoary gits and should give way to the younger generation?

It all gets far too complicated for me after that point, which is why I do not, personally, use any definition but my own. And my own is so subjective that I would not even dream of discussing it in public, let alone trying yo inflict it on anyone!

Cheers

DtG