Traditional is an interesting word applied in tis sense. As a music teacher I require students to write string quartets in the style of Haydn. This makes their output most definitely 'classical' despite their writing after 1900. Similarly I don't confuse a piece written in 'pop' style with a student's rendering of a 'Bach' chorale but neither do i accept it as anything other than 'Baroque ' music despite its being written after 1750. Surely 'traditional' means just that, written in the tradition of that sort of song and thus is a stylistic label rather than a definition of 'historical artefact'? Liz and I have just recorded a number of rewritings and re-workings of Child ballads which critics have been kind enough to recognise as 'traditional' because of their stylistic approach. But then again, we're not played by MH and so probably don't represent a threat to a perceived status quo? I thjink young Lakeman is to be congratulated, he's travelled a long hard road to this and knows better than most of us that a record deal means nothing without the hard apprenticeship in the 'tradition'. Give the guy a break, he's doing a good job.