I think a chicken or egg argument about which came first the song or the street literature is doomed, and will result in no useful conclusion. It's about as useless as the 'Folk didn't make Folk' argument we have seen here before. The original thread suggested that monetary gain was not a driving force behind the composition of the old songs. 'The Old songs' is a term that means absolutely nothing at all. How old? Where from? etc.
I agree with the objective view that the majority of the repertoire of songs collected from traditional singers and presented as folk songs by the revival (first or second) originated as street literature and were adapted and improved subsequently. The subjective 'Merrie England' view where all musical motives are free from contamination by monetary gain or any other motive that does not fit the criteria, has no merit in my opinion.

---

It's another "what is folk" thread that was never intended to do anything but start a squabble. ---mudelf