"Just concurring with the views of Reg Hall, an early stalwart of the tradition- re- 'Lily of Laguna', the views I mentioned were expressed 50 years ago- if it's a good song, who cares if it is traditional or not- you lot can't even define it and PLEASE DON'T TRY!!!"

Defining what is traditional or not was precisely what Reg Hall was doing in that statement made fifty years ago - it's just that he was defining it purely by context and not at all by musical and lyrical content. My first reaction to his words (especially regarding the phrase 'interesting and meaningful' to describe the performance rather than plain 'enjoyable') was that they reeked of an elitism of their own. The perspective of a sociologist rather than a listener.

The problem with a 'context is everything' approach is that it means that Fred Jordan was 'authentic' when singing in the Church Inn in Ludlow, but not when at the National Folk Festival. You could say the same for Lizzie Higgins, or Willie Scott, or any traditional singer who ever performed for a 'folk scene' audience.

"the Child ballads are an important body of work but the chances of anyone giving a meaningful and sympathetic delivery of a Child ballad in 2015 are slim (at least 50 years ago there was a real possibility of hearing ballads in a social context)
There's always an exception of course delivered vibrantly to what is after all a tiny minority of the population- ie folkies)...
but such material is far better left to the academics these days I think."

We're all entitled to our differing tastes, Jim, but I do find that statement staggering. Why can no singer be expected to give a meaningful delivery of an old ballad in 2015? Are you saying that modern singers lack the imagination and empathy to find and communicate the excitement and emotional depth of material from two or three hundred years ago? Or is it just that it wouldn't go down well in the taproom of your local pub, so is therefore of no value? The material is valid as long as there is an audience ready to listen to it - who's entitled to decide what is an appropriate 'social context'?