I do believe that we should do whatever we do as well as we can, and I also believe that most wish to do so. I also believe that we should not exclude those who may not be as excellent as others - that would surely kill the tree, for we are not all as gifted as Martin Carthy or June Tabor. As Martin said, the worst we could do to the songs would be to fail to sing them. We serve them better by singing them well, whether we preserve them in aspic (the preference of some) or interpret them (my preference), although we ideally need to know how they were in oter to interpret them now.

But I do think that you miss part of the point Jim, when you say that people today are attracted by skill, understanding, and commitment - and thereby imply that they are attracted to those things to the exclusion of all others.

It is contrary to what we see in "pop" music in general. There are some specialist types of modern non-classical music where skill has become a major factor, but there are many where the physical appearance is the predominant factor.

I also suggest that at least in some types of folk music it is indeed the continuity with the past that makes a major contribution to the survivial of the songs (or I imagine tunes although they interest me less). Many Irish sing the songs of rebellion precisely because of what they are. Comparably Orangemen. The sentimental Irish ballad is much sung by all sorts of Irish because of its reflection of the believed courtship customs of the past. Many English surely relish the insults hurled at the French in much maritime song.

I am sure I have heard American singers sing, for example "the Battle of New Orleans" (whether it is traditional or not) because of what it says about the expulsion of the English from what later bacame the USA.