Hello Brian

If the aim is to give readers of this thread a full picture of Sharp's concept, then, for, me, picking out small extracts and mediating them in ways that suit a particular view may not be the way to go about it. I feel that this is what you may be doing.

The point I was making is that at no point did Sharp state that folk songs were written by the lowest class. So for me a post which says he was referring to the 'labouring classes' plural doesn't focus on the point I was making.

But what we need to note, I suggest, is that in this piece as a whole, Sharp is not talking about the words. Granted, he noted them down, but the focus of the piece is what sort of music should be taught in state schools, where the teaching of music had been made compulsory. It was written as part of an ongoing dispute between Sharp and other interested parties about what sort of songs children should be taught to sing.

Sharp himself had already published one set of songs for use in schools and homes, which included what they called 'national songs', ones with known composers and lyricists. But at this point he had changed tack. He was arguing that national songs should not be taught in schools; what should be taught was songs using tunes that he had collected, which he thought would improve the minds of the lower classes and provide national unity and lead eventually to the production of national 'art' music based on the traditional melodies he was collecting. These songs, as Sharp eventually published them for public consumption, would have words modified in various ways, including the removal of dialect or ungrammatical language and a general cleaning up to suit the mores of the time.

As it happens, your use of the term 'labouring classes' tends to confirm my point. And Jim's assertion that Sharp was focussed on the agricultural poor certainly has no foundation in what Sharp wrote. Nor does it describe the sample from whom Sharp took the material he collected, as has been discussed in some detail.