I don't know whether Norma's objection is to an implied commodification of traditional songs, or to a perceived slight against those *not* considered "source singers", but I do know that the days when traditional singers were regarded as croaky geriatrics whose sole value was as raw material for 'proper' singers in the folk revival are long gone.

Overall, I would have to say that the songs, fine versions all, are more interesting than the singer.

Well from the example(s) I provided - these days look to be far gone.

But if they have and many of the other less than positive aspects of the folk revival are gone also - then perhaps the term 'sorce singer' can now safely go along with them?

"Source singer" is in my opinion a useful and unambiguous term, and any implication of patronisation or disrespect seems to me to be only in the mind of the listener.

Of course, if someone is going to be patronising or disrespectful they will be so regardless of the label.

So why then continue to attempt to group so many disparate singers together by using any label and this particlar label at all - when you can effectively credit the source without using this term, by simply saying who the source for the song was?