I dislike as much of contemporary pop music as the next person; on the other hand, I'm no purist. My tastes are fairly eclectic; while I could be validly accused of many abberations, "purism" isn't one of them.

The "traditions" in which I am most interested are extremely open-ended:

A)

The "songster" tradition, wherein buskers, streetsingers, one-man-bands, jug bands, etc., use their portable (and generally acoustic) instrumentation to interpret whatever material their audience wants to hear ~ which might include truly traditional folk songs, time-tested ("classic") popular material such as Beatle songs, "fake-book" standards like Gershwin or Cole Porter songs, doo-wop and rock 'n' roll "oldies," etc. In personal terms, anything and everything I enjoy playing and singing, and that I'm *able* to play.

B)

The New-Orleans-music tradition, which encompasses a rich mixture of shake-your-ass music from the traditional-jazz repertoire, through the 40s/50s R&B that gave birth to rock 'n' roll (e.g., Professor Longhair), to current-day brass-band street-parade music and several varieties of contemporary blues/rock and roots/rock. Lots of horns, drums, and piano, and little or no place for *my* intrument, the acoustic guitar. This is music that I truly love and that I can *sing,* but that I can't really *play* as an instrumentalist or as a solo self-accompanyist.

And, hey, anyone who has different tastes (which I know includes *most* of y'all Mudcatters), that's fine with me. I also think that when we discuss the pros and cons of adhering to a "tradition," we can share a common viewpoint even when each person is talking about an entirely different tradition...