Steve
Your posting refers to nothing I have said
Your work as a collector concerns taking songs from a tradition that was being remembered twice
We have agreed (I thought) that even Sharp's people were taking songs from a dying tradition a century ago and racing to do so
Where does that leave us at present
Pat had the advantage of recording songs from a tradition on its last legs and one that was still warm
Even there, it was limited because it was largely being remembered.
Your claims have not been made on the basis of what you discovered in the field bup from paperwork
I admit to not having definitive answers, you have pai
d lip service to not having answers but from the very beginning your attitude has been =one of contempt and ridicule - I'm sure you don't need me to repeat your dismissive summing up of my attitude to MacColl's 'Song Carriers summing up
Your attitude to researchers and academics who were living at the time the broadside presses were going full tilt and and the world was throbbing with living traditions I find totally unacceptable - as for those immediately following that period - unbelievable.
Your dogged determination to draw the conclusions you have from statistics leave none of us any future other than to give up and follow your lead - you leave no room for negotiation or co-operation

People have complained about our going round in circle - fine - why not face my arguments down with ones of your own?
The basic Question is a simple one
If you believe the people were capable of making our folk songs - why are you so convinced that they didn't ?
I really don't think it gets much more difficult than that
I really have shown you mane - far too much of it
Now where's yours?
All I've seen so far is shadow boxing
Jim