'GUEST,28 Dec 21 - 09:18 AM - PM'

A bit of a cumbersome moniker, 'Guest...'. Most of us here find our actual names more convenient. However...

'Was something like re-enactment what the founders had in mind?'

Clearly not, if Cecil Sharp's piano arrangements are anything to go by. 'In their original forms' was presumably meant to refer to the core material, rather than forbidding contemporary arrangements of it; some would say that the core material was being altered as well, though I'd say the second Revival did far more of that than the first.

There is, however, a potential contradiction between the 'original forms' clause and the emphasis on 'new work' apparently demanded by arts funding organisations. That doesn't mean that new work shouldn't be encouraged, but there remains a question of the extent to which it should be expected to conform to the musical conventions of the 'original forms', and by what criteria conformity should be judged.

In a recent discussion of 'authenticity' I asked whether we should regard as 'more authentic' the Copper Family's rendition of 'Shepherd of the Downs', or a pleasure garden re-enactment orchestra performing 'The Shepherd Adonis' - the song's original form. Answer came there none.