Very fundamental to the nature of Traditional Singers is that they are not duty bound to sing only Traditional Songs,

Yes, of course.

but also might reach out and grab what they can and absorb them into their idiomatic repertoire where they are transfigured with respect of a tradition without actually being traditional in the 1954 sense.

You seem to be saying that anything should be called a traditional song, as long as someone does a different version of it. Do you really think that?

I've explained what I was thinking - I've explained it until I'm blue in the face;

OK, please try again using small words that someone of my limited understanding will get. Do you think that Jim Eldon song is traditional? You have answered both yes and no in the last couple of days. If you don't think it's traditional, why post it with on this thread with an introduction about him being a traditional singer?

Otherwise - it is my firm conviction that Jim Eldon is a very important figure in the field of Tradition English Folk Song and what he does matters a good deal.

OK, no disagreement there. That still doesn't make his parody of a modern song traditional, or pertinent to this discussion.

It is also my firm conviction that the Tradition isn't dead, that it lives on in people such as Jim Eldon and countless others whose names aren't even known outside of their respective folk clubs - no doubt even yourself. What I see is a very beautiful community of individual singers learning & singing traditional songs - even people who've only sang once or twice in public, newcomers, old and young, their lives transformed with respect of a tradition that they themselves are transforming simply by the singing of it. I see that it still has great potency, and that potency is of supreme importance.

This is actually quite moving, and I feel the same way.