Well the butterfly/egg analogy was not meant to be an exact one, more of a way of provoking thought. It seemed to work however and the responses have made me think some more.

Sophocleese says: "Shambles I don't think you can justly compare the collection of independent living creatures, butterflies or eggs, with the collection of abstract entities, songs, which only live when humans give them voice. The creatures may die but the songs just lie dormant until woken by others".

Butterflies were "independent living creatures" until they were collected, then they were dead and then become to some extent "abstract entities".

Traditional songs were alive when humans were giving them voice and only become "abstract entries" after being collected. They may not loose all of their 'life' during the process of lying dormant but the process does not help and certain elements of their past relevance and vibrancy are lost. Giving them voice again may make them re-live to some extent but can also on occasions make them resemble 'Frankenstein's Monster.

"It's life Jim, but not as we know it".

Kevin says: "The analogy with egg collecting doesn't really stand up. Every egg you collect is a bird that might have hatched. That's got no parallel in song collecting."

It depends on how you view the song you collect. It appeared to be necessary for the early English collectors to pronounce the individuals and the tradition that spawned the song as dead. Maybe reports of that song's death were exaggerated?

Could it be that the song still continued it's natural evolution to find itself, at a later date competing unsuccessfully against the transcribed, arranged and generally recognised 'Frankenstein's Monster? Could it be that this was a major cause of the void in the English tradition?

Could it be that every song you collect is part of a tradition that might of hatched?

"A much more apt metaphor is that of a seed bank, which exists to ensure that the seeds of plnats are available to be planted again when the occasion arises."

I do see your point but a seed with the genetic material 'blown' out of it is exactly the same as a collected egg. The purpose of collecting seed is different to collecting eggs, I accept. Of course the collected songs are more than empty shells but still not containing the complete genetic message

.

This is taking it to an extreme I know but even if you could retain all of the genetic material from a Jurassic seed or egg, the resulting life would now have to endure conditions that would have changed so much as to make it's existence impossible.

In that sense does not Environment = Tradition if Seed = Song?

I like the DT too. It is a very valuable resource a credit to it's originators and very much a living thing. I am proud to say that a creation of mine forms part of it. Not a Frankenstein's Monster, but possibly more of Trojan Horse? I think it might well form the part of the DT that Dick refers to as crap? But I didn't collect the song. (smiles).

There is also a very valuable and entertaining resource for original songs called The Mudcat Songbook. My thanks also go to The Keeper Of That Book.