Thought I would chime in here with a new idea, which for the sake of simplicity we could call resonance. This has to do with the rich quality that a great folk song or folk singer of great folk songs has that causes a deep response in the listener. Without pushing it too much, there are different ways of getting to that sense of depth. One way is the resonance of experience -- the overtones and depth you get from listening to someone who has lived, even if it isn’t overt in the song -- for example, the later Billie Holliday or any number of blues singers. Another might be an organic relationship of the song to its listeners: it speaks to a common historical or geographical experience, so that it resonates with, connects with many facets of their lives. There are some quirky resonances as well: I think most people have one song or songs that speak directly to some experience of their own, which they sing better than anyone. (Also of course there are songs that are so close to people that people sing them badly and weepily -- go to a karaoke bar sometime). One reason why historical or other kinds of research work for some people is that it gives the song more resonance, it connects with their experience, or it just has new layers, like varnish. The problem with the “bad” version of the scholarly approach is that the person doesn’t seem to allow the long history or the multiple traditions enrich the resonance of the song (including the richness of variation), but that it is turned into a kind of rigidity. I think any sensitive listener feels that something is missing, even though they cannot quite put their finger on it. It is this quality of resonance (a deepening of experience provided by the song) that isn't there. Whew. Yours, Peter T.