It's a pity, though not surprising, that some of this thread has returned to the old (mouldy) chestnuts of "what is folk?" or "what is traditional?" or "why the hell does it matter anyway?". Despite the arguments as to whether definitions are useful at all, and despite the difficulty of agreeing about them even amongst those of us who see a need for them, clearly there are different camps among us.

Some of us prefer to sing and listen to mostly the songs that have knocked around in the tradition for a long while, plus some of the more recent ones that have been written in comparable styles. (I say "styles" plural because I don't see a lot in common between, for example, Cruel Mother, Cupid's Garden and Watters o' Tyne.) Some of us prefer to sing and listen to mostly recently written songs about the human condition or current issues. Some of us are very enthusiastic about particular performers. Some of us have catholic tastes. All those preferences are legitimate, and no-one should object to anyone else's. However we do have a right to complain if the description on a particular tin misleads us about the contents.

The intended subject of this thread was whether those of us who (for want of any better term) can be labelled "traddies" are miserable buggers, fit only to be either despised or pitied for our clinging to fossilised material, or whether we have our virtues.

I'd better finish by declaring where I stand.

I belong to the "traddie" camp.

I reckon we deserve some credit for valuing the old stuff, wanting to keep it alive, and encouraging youngsters who take an interest.

Richard