"well I think its a sort of middle class atavistic drive for solidarity. keeps the plebs away. they're not going to bother with these songs where the substance is at very best hidden and in many cases negligible."

Hidden? Negligible? I'm really not sure what songs you're talking about here, or which ones you'd prefer. Most of the traditional songs I know wear their hearts on their sleeves, and if you think 'Hind Horn' or 'Sheepcrook and Black Dog' lack substance, then you haven't been listening. Or are you making some kind of suggestion that people from society's lower strata find the old songs too demanding? Cecil Sharp's informants and the travellers that Jim collected from didn't seem to have any problems with that.

A couple of weeks ago I went to the funeral of Joe Kerins, a Mancunian Irishman and working man who sang a belting 'Lord Gregory' and a wealth of other songs both serious and hilarious. For years he was resident at the city-centre folk club I went to for years, along with a bunch of regulars extremely diverse in both musical orientation and social rank. What is this shit about "keeping the plebs at bay"? I just don't get it. Mass entertainment and personal technology have worked their seductive wiles right across the social spectrum. You seem to be saying that because traditional music isn't the music of the masses (whatever 'the masses' consist of these days), then there must be something inherently wrong with it. You might as well say the same about Shakespeare - perhaps you would. The fact is it's a specialised musical interest, and that's why Mudcat exists - to bring its enthusiasts together.