I have found the subject of this thread fascinating. It even got me into thinking of joining Mudcat (until it degenerated into personal attacks etc) but my thanks for the approximately 60% of comments which addressed the question directly.

If I try to filter out the discussion on traditional song rather than traditional singers (even the 19/08/10 posting stating that there was no such thing as a traditional singer and the word could only be used to describe the material) there seems to be a remarkable amount of agreement.

Most contributors seemed to suggest that a "traditional singer" refers to someone who learned the majority of their material/repertoire as part of an ongoing tradition (3 contributors), orally (3 contributors) and developed their style (2 contributors) from their daily community life (6 contributors).

Few seem to disagree that traditional singers who met that definition may also have learned songs from outside their community (but then performed the songs in their own style) (despite the 23/08/10 posting which claims Fred Jordan was both a traditional and a revivalist singer, suggesting that it requires both the context and the material to be "traditional" to qualify.)

The later posting which refers to the distinction made within some communities between those who "had a few songs" and those who were "singers" might also suggest that the term "traditional singer" also needed to be bestowed upon a person and generally accepted within their community rather than claimed by them. (Would this exclude some of the singers collected by the likes of Sharp?)

The term "traditionalist" seemed to disappear rapidly within the thread and the terms "revivalist" and "source singer" seemed to have been used with some consensus throughout. Perhaps these are of more use to those of more academic bent than "traditional singer" which has been absorbed into the "non-academic" mainstream/festival/folk club literature and thus become less useful and concise.

My thanks to those who provided me with these thoughts.