EKanne: I completely agree with you about the beauty of a 'perfect tragedy in miniature' - that is the root of my love for a lot of ballads, I think, although not all.

But you also said: 'But perhaps of more interest is why you might want to move beyond the recognised 'originals' to some composite/amalgamation? [I know there is much (ongoing) discussion about the 'folk process', but I know that I find personal satisfaction sooner in the 'polishing' of a version of one of these ballads, rather than a combination of several.]'

Surely there's room for both approaches? Sometimes I find a ballad I love, in a version I love, and I learn it - obviously my own interpretation and my lapses of memory will alter it slightly, but it's basically the 'original'. But sometimes I find a story I want to tell, but I don't like the tune, or the words don't feel genuine in my mouth, or it's too long or too short or there's a bit of the story missing. Surely it's better then to combine it with different versions (which probably came from the same root) than to give up completely? And many of the Child ballads are incomplete, so the only way it's possible to perform them is by combining different fragments, reworking some lines, maybe even adding in the odd stock verse from elsewhere, if it fits...

I've heard some beautiful ballads in recent years which had obviously involved a lot of work on the part of the singer, either in reconstructing the narrative or in editing to give a different angle on the story. I really can't see the harm. (And on a personal note it makes me slightly less likely to panic when I see that the Davenports - damn them and their limitless free time! - are working on the same song I've just started learning, as I can be fairly confident the two versions will end up sounding sufficiently different not to offend!)