The suggestion of exams for traditional music raises a number of questions in my mind, the foremost being 'why? What would such exams achieve?' If exams inspired further interest in a subject the world would be full of people with an avid desire to find out more about literature, mathematics, languages, algebra, science, religion…… you name it, I sat the exams (and failed).
Who would oversee such exams - ? Captain Birdseye answered himself when he questioned the role of EFDSS. Holding Saturday night dances – you got it right there. This is the activity that seems to be the raison détre of that august body. Any attempts to divert them from their purpose may be judged by the events surrounding the proposed sale of Cecil Sharp House some years ago and the resulting manoevers. Sure, the Vaughan Williams Memorial Library, thanks in the main to its librarian, offers a wonderful service, but this, it seems to me, is despite the Society rather than because of it. The last contact I had with EFDSS, was in the form of a somewhat conspiratorial round robin from the editor of one of its publications; the subject - Ewan MacColl's war record! The idea of discussing his contribution to traditional song appears to be as far away as it ever was.
So if not EFDSS – who? Nobody springs immediately to my mind.
There has been some (little) mention of our source singers (notably an insulting dismissive "elderly, quivery" one), but much of the discussion seems to centre around whether it is desirable to sound like Martin Carthy – is he really the yardstick with which we judge good and bad traditional singing nowadays – oh dear!   
Such a project pre-supposes a consensus of opinion on what we mean by good traditional music and singing – of course, no such consensus exists – we don't even appear to have a consensus on what the tradition is, never mind what is good or bad.
Now if the preparation for such an enterprise meant efforts would have to be made to reach a consensus – now there's a thought. However, that won't happen. Today's revival has a built in defence mechanism consisting of terms like 'folk police', 'finger-in-ear' and 'purist' to ascertain that the status quo is maintained. I still have fond memories of the mind-numbing if predictable response to Pat Mackenzie's and my efforts to get a debate going on the pages of 'The Living Tradition' some years ago.
Bert Lloyd suggested in 1967 that a re-definition of folk song might be necessary. No re-definition has ever taken place but there seems to have been a drift so far away from the original definition that the term has become meaningless. Until it is decided what should be taught and examined it seems to me to be futile to attempt such an enterprise.
Incidentally, Comhaltas did not "prevent the Irish music and singing tradition from dying and turn it into a flourishing and strong position". Many rank-and-file branch members played their part in passing the music on, but nowadays the Irish traditional music scene has taken feet of its own and is flourishing without (and in some cases in spite of) Comhaltas. There are a number of striking similarities between Comhaltas and EFDSS, the main one being the lack of understanding of the leadership of both organisations regarding traditional music. The difference between the two bodies is the enormous sums of money at CCE's disposal to promote their somewhat idiosyncratic view of that music.
Jim Carroll
PS Hello Martin.
It is true that there is no firm evidence linking Riverdance and Comhaltas, but as we speak our SOCO team is sifting through what we have so far and we are confident of an arrest in the not-to-distant future. I don't believe it was a coincidence that Riverdance got such a warm mention in O'Murchu's 1998 report on Irish music and it has always seemed to me a that their performance is a natural development of what passes for traditional dance in Comhaltas.