"Ultimately, the experience of any narrative (traditional or otherwise, but let's assume traditional here) is essentially subjective; the role of the singer or storyteller is mediumistic to this end - their job is not a creative or imaginative one, but simply one of a performer. "

Absolutely academic nonsense. There is a role of creativity when the ballad becomes a vehicle for performance and additions are made over the years. Academics in general have a propensity for downgrading the role of creativity in almost everything.


"Whatever empowers them in this respect, they do not determine the nature of that experience for the listener, nor yet are they themselves aware of the inherent layers that exist within any given narrative, any one of which might set off any amount of triggers within the mind of the listener."

This makes no sense. They are not academic robots for some grey-bearded pseudo-analyst to come along and set up a false standard.

Balladeers are aware and that's why they choose to sing these songs. It would make
no sense otherwise. As for triggers within the mind of the listener, this can only be
set off by an inherent understanding of what they are doing.