I contacted Tony Engle and enclosed the first post. He thought that he probably would not have the time himself to enter into an e-debate and that it might be a good idea to alert participants to this and proposed that his following comments are described as – "a quick response" as further thought would probably produce a more developed argument.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of the word "source" has the potential for implying that the prime role of a traditional singer is that of supplier of material to the folk scene. In effect, that the folk scene and its (essentially) revivalist singers may be more important than the traditional performers. The use of the term "source singer" has the potential for limiting the position of such a singer to that of merely a source, rather than anything else (creative artist in their own right for instance).

I consider Harry Cox to be a great artist, performer and singer - and with those descriptions in place he doesn't need to be referred to as a source. That he is used as a source is incontestable, but, in my view, it shouldn't be part of his prime definition.

I am not proposing that the term should be rejected but I am suggesting that it should be used in context.
ENDS