Sorry Sue
I intended to respond to your interesting post
Steve Round has written an interesting book - on popular song
It is my opinion that he has entitled it incorrectly
As ha has taken it upon himself to re-fefine folk song in the way he has and turn a century or so's scholarship on its head, surely he can expect adverse response from those who disagree with him, especially from those of us who have been at it as long as he has?
This redefinition is so fundamental as to cause us all to question what we have been doing for the last half century
I was part of a singing revival which fell apart when the foundations were destroyed by people who wished to turn our clubs into cultural dustbins by using them as convenient platforms to perfiorm any type of song they wished
I'm not suggesting for one minute that this is Steve's intention, but this could well be the effect these claims have.
Already we have seen the "Oooh look - the folk didn't make folk songs" responses from the establishment art critics.
Our own researches, in Britain and Ireland, suggest the opposite to be the case
Is it "unseemly" to argue on the basis of those researches.
One of the main proponents of this argument, someone who has co-operated with Roud on his book, has reduced these discussions to personal slanging matches - I have insulted nobody and have sought to avoid doing so.
No these arguments are being reduced to using errant Spellcheck correctors to snipe from the sidelines
Not particularly "seemly" either
Jim Carroll