Question:

I don't really 'care' about the definition. I have no issue with those who DO care about the definition. (Just to make that clear.)

It seems to me that the definition 'freezes' the meaning of what qualifies as traditional material, but also engendered within the definition is that the song is one that changes as it passes from person to person, area to area. I'm ok with that. However, how then does a person say that a song MUST be done this way or that way embrace that aspect of the definition?


("Do unto others as they would do unto you" is very different in meaning from "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.")

And other than for 'scholarly research', why should a traditional song be archive. The definition implies that the song will take its own course. Kinda like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: The actuality of measuring the speed of something interfers with the speed of that being observed. Or the anthropological observence(sp) of a culture interferes with that culture and hence changes it.

Anyway, from one old fart to a few others, have a NICE day.