If this posts OK please ignore it, it is a duplicate from the "Original music that sounds traditional" thread posted as a test for Mike.

Hi Shambles me old mucker, now that's a cunning way to start of version 967 of the "what is folk" thread! ;-) Actually I've tried to take my time before contributing as it is clearly a subject which deserves a thoughtful response, and as usual if I wait most of the things I would have liked to have said have been said already. So, rather than opting for a "me too" I'll try and address each of your original questions in turn; always bearing in mind that phrases like "a good thing" have never been the same since Sellars and Yeatman! 1 Is it a good thing that songs can be written in a style that could be mistaken for a traditional song? I think that this is not only good, it is essential and inevitable. Inevitable because we create within a frame of reference which includes the "traditional" music of western culture, so that will influence the outcome - now the degree to which this is obvious will vary tremendously but it will be there. It is also essential if the folk tradition and here I would define the folk tradition as being something of, by and for the people ie excluding anything written for an audience, or personal aggrandisement; is to continue. "Traditional" folk music, like most things which are currently unfashionable (eg hierarchical management structures) have survived for thousands of years because they work within the situations for which they were created or from which they evolved. 2 Is it a good idea for new writers to consciously try and write songs in this style? Probably the hardest to answer as it "all depends". For people like MacColl and Tawney, it works, and it is hard to imagine them writing in ant other style, for others it doesn't work, and for still others it should not even be considered. I think if you are steeped in the tradition within which you are writing and the subject matter, your natural style of writing and your tune fit, then there is a good chance of it working. 3 Is it the only way that some people will actually be prepared to listen to original material? I think you had your tongue firmly in cheek with that one mate! I'm sure, as I suspect you are, that the only people most to get steamed up over current songs written in traditional style are those who have a narrow definition of "traditional folk" which includes "more than x years old", and who think that nothing else is worthwhile. I don't think any of us including the curmudgeonly twins (Bill D and me (hope you don't mind Bill)) dislike new songs in any style (except for new age !@#$ navel gazers) We might get excited if someone tries to pass them of as traditional, but we would welcome songs which, if they stand the test of time, will become a valid and necessary contribution to the continuance of the corpus of "traditional" songs. 4 If the original songs in this style can be so easily mistaken for the "real thing" does this not make some of the purist's views somewhat invalid, in a musical sense if not a scholarly one? Nah! Firstly I don't believe there is such thing as "purist" category into which we can all be fitted or we wouldn't be having this conversation. Fortunately or unfortunately, we humans love taxonomical quibbling and there is constant changes in what is "in" or "out" of classifications in all fields. Also I think you, and the "if it sounds like a duck" argument are missing the point of this particular category. To stretch the analogy, a duck may answer a duck call, in other words the hunter sounds like a duck to a duck, but he doesn't pass the Turing test, a duck can't get meaningful responses from him. Similarly a song may be identical to a "traditional" song in subject matter, style, music and the use of language, but that is not the only criteria which is relevant. To me it is like eating with a peg on your nose, its Ok and fills you up, but there is not the same enjoyment. Again, I would stress there is no implication that the new song is of any less worth, just that it is not (yet) "traditional". I think that at the root there may be a confusion that "traditional" implies static. Clearly, folk music has and is growing and evolving, some songs which could now be considered "traditional" were not written when Sharp was collecting and some which were sung and popular then have been quietly forgotten as not belonging in "our" bucket. Oh well, time for a work break. Lets try out Mike's changes and see if this posts OK Pete M