iam not arguing whether or not they come from a different stable,but I am saying there are good revival singers and good traditional singers and there are also mediocre traditional singers.,and that when i choose to listen to music for enjoyment,its based on a qualitative judgement,if I listen to learn a particular song my criteria might be different.
that does not mean I dont appreciate them as song carriers,but that is a different appreciation
when I make a judgement about singing,I do it based on their singing not on how they are labelled.
for example I like Harry Cox,but not Gordon Hall[both traditional singers],I also like Bob Blake[even though he was not a traditional singer].
I also like the revival singer Ron Taylor.
yes some traditional may have differentiated, but most good performers[and that includes some traditional ones] know there are songs suitable for different situations,Sam Larner knew perfectly well when to sing a certain kind of song and was a consummate perform,or do you disagree?
so if some traditional singers were good performers[knowing how to work an audience],why should we use a different yardstick?
why should we make excuses for mediocre traditional singers,I agree they may be worth listening to if they have an interesting repertoire,but that does not mean they are all necessarily good interpreters,most are but not all
I dont think it is as black and white as you make out,
and personally Iam not prepared to sit in revernce listening to a traditional singer giving a poor performance of a music hall songor amodern song,just because he is labelled a traditional singer,this same singer might give an excellent rendition of a traditional song:
why, because as a performer he values one more than the other,but that can apply to any performer revival or traditional