@ Jack. You have, of course, pointed out one flaw in Jim Carroll's illogical and factually incorrect assertion, which was:

"As it is, unless songs were learned orally a singer took a tune that fitted - fact"

You have provided one example showing that it the dichotomy set up in this assertion of 'fact' is a false one. However, it wasn't only a matter of telling people what song to sing: some earlier printed lyric sheets stated in writing the tune to be used.

So I stand by my point that the statement was nonsensical. The fact that the person who wrote it had for many decades a hobby of recording himself chatting to singers makes it no less nonsensical or in any way means that that person has a right to be viewed as an 'authority'. Though I accept that the resource bank of sung material compiled may be of value to future revival singers looking for inspiration and that the collector has been generous in supplying digitised versions of the material on request.

Your point about tunes having connotations is a good one, though how far the various folk tunes collected by Sharp had connotations that distinguished them is something I don't know about. Perhaps these might have varied locally depending on which tunes were used for various songs?