"the question of whether the composer of the song is known or unknown becomes IRRELEVANT once the song has been changed by the community"

Shimrod. That's a dangerous argument. Why? Because it will have people believing that change and 'community ownership' are enough to negate the need for credit/attribution/copyright etc. This is because most believe that Trad = Publicly Owned.

So they'll decide that Changed/owned by community (=Trad) = Out of Copyright. Which is NOT the case - you see?

Now. I do agree with the basic principle as applied to the looser term 'folk' - because you can define that word how you like these days.

But, if we allow that Don T's definition has any credence, we must be VERY wary of using that criterion to define 'tradtional'. (If, on the other hand, Don's argument is wrong, then of course you may have the _word_ to for your process - but we'll need something else to describe Don's process).

Let me say it again: THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF WHAT 'TRADITIONAL' MEANS (and as some people still use 'folk' in this area then you can substitute folk for traditional if you want to).

Don, mine is not a non-sequiter. I'm just the advocate here.

I'm presenting, side by side, two different 'truths'.

You, presumably, subscribe to what I've called above the 'closed' truth - the anon/old/niche-development definition, yes?

I assume this because you say "You have given a very cogent and precise reason why only the orally transmitted tradition should be referred to as "Traditional", and with that I tend to agree."

I have not, actually, said as much. I have merely described this as one point of view.

I have ALSO defined the other argument - equally valid - which I read here on mudcat over and over and over again. This is the definition almost promulgated by Shimrod above: "ANY song can become a folk song if it has been through the right process" - which others might put as "ANY song can become a TRADITIONAL song if it has been through the right process." I repeat his/her quote "the question of whether the composer of the song is known or unknown becomes IRRELEVANT once the song has been changed by the community."

Now, do you see the issue?

There is a 'closed' catalogue, and an 'open' catalogue - plus the issues of copyright and the correct attribution of writers.

No problem with this all this. All these situations can be explained and understood with a paragraph or so.

The problem is that both camps (and the legislature too) believe they have unique use of one word; 'Tradition' (or possibly 'folk')

Now. Who is to judge which is right? They can't all three be. But each refuses to give up his title.

An aside:

Of course it's stupid to claim 'trad' for England (I'm English btw). Every culture has its traditions, some still flowing, some with portions sealed by historical change like ours. The English model happens to be fairly important because of its age, patina, history and influence, but it's only one of thousands. I wish it had a unique name - and maybe in time we'll get one.

Meanwhile I take huge heart from Don T's post "Attribution is the key. Always give credit, either to the composer, or to the fact that a song is traditional. Crediting yourself with your own compositions is optional, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. If it's any good, someone will usually ask, "Who wrote that?" Much more satisfying!"