Gaughan has in the quote above has cast doubt upon our ability to define. Yes, part of his reasoning suggests that we only have a small portion of the whole. This is true. But....he also generalizes by saying that the tradition is "so intangible" that it can not be defined. This is not true as what we know of it can certainly be described, characterized and known. I cited an example of how Gaughan himself has made his own definitions of the material that exists and he has categorized it and he has edited out categories from his work- he has not take the approach that the river is a whole which can not be categorized and defined. His concept is a good one. But, he might consider practicing it. It is just as difficult to be totally inclusive and perfectly objective in regard to an entire unsplittable un categorizable tradition and to treat a tradition in this way as to be overly concerned with definition and explanation. These are two extreme poles of the variable of knowing. Again Gaughan demonstrates that we can know and define what we have of the whole. It would be of benifit to the inventory of songs and verses if we kept from such definition and played them all but the human mind seems to always step in, categorize define and censor. But let us not insist that it can not and is not being done. A tradition is like a salami what you have of it should be sliced and eaten as a whole. It does no good to the overall flavor to pick out the black peppers. For the whole to be enjoyable we must see it as more than the sum of its parts - we must ignore the parts and simply play and sing a cross section overcoming the human weakness of categorization and favoritism as best we can.

Sometimes you cant eat a hot black pepper by itself but when you enbed it within the whole it can become quite pleasant. All of the ingredients are also valuable none should be thrown out- all should be exercised regularly.

Conrad