SOP, the "collective" nature of the folk process is cumulative rather than collaborative. No one is arguing that these songs were created by committee, even less that the singers were passive carriers. I entirely agree that they were made and shaped by individuals. The collective element comes from the way they were passed from one individual to the next, each shaping it by their own individuality and creativity.

When Harry Cox or Walter Pardon learned a new song, they didn't go back to some original version of it and then start on their version from scratch. They took a song which had already been worked on by their predecessors and added as much or as little as they thought appropriate.

We don't know how much of a Cox or Pardon song comes from their creativity and how much comes from the singers before them. That is the sense in which there is a collective element to the songs' creation. It is not to deny the creativity of Cox or Pardon, but to recognise that they played only a part in the evolution of the songs they sang.

To suggest that the term "folk process" somehow denies this is a complete reversal of the truth.