Hi,

Faye, "let's leave me out of the discussion", is something that's not all that common on Mudcat. I'd go as far as to say that in Folk circles in general, keeping something impersonal is rather unusual. I hope that explains why so far we didn't, and probably from now on we won't either.

Faye, "the attitude that ANY kind of change is ALWAYS wrong", I didn't see in your original question. In your example, the organiser appreciated your music, and the club policy as he applied it apparently didn't judge your music in terms of right or wrong either, just in whether it would be appropriate for that club. If you feel that's the wrong way to approach folk music, then don't play there. But more importantly, if you feel like that, realise that the one passing judgement is you, not them.

Faye, "traditional music" is about a style and an approach to music. A variation doesn't get more traditional in that sense over the years, unless the change of style of the tradition over time makes it more main stream traditional music. For a variation to become more acceptable as heritage music, on the other hand, it probably would have to stay in the main stream for one or two generations.

Gurney, I can't agree that "the attitude that change is GOOD is always wrong, too.". There are situations that are so desperate that the attitude that (all) change is good must do more good than bad.
Can we find common ground in "The attitude that change is ALWAYS good is wrong, too"?

Richard, can you elaborate a bit on where I'm confusing things? When I feel strongly about something I write rather a lot, and I don't always get what people are replying to. Yes, I know, it's not a virtue. And don't know about any definition, BTW, and I don't think Folk is about a definition or other rule anyway. Defining a tradition is like taking a picture: at best you catch the moment.

                                                                Mysha