Seeing as this thread has drifted (as so many do), I'd like to come in on the Barry Bucknell business.

theleveller introduced the "restoration" analogy. Jim then referred to Barry Bucknell as an illustration of "demolition, not restoration". "Pretty much the philosophy of those who tell us that the old songs and styles of singing have had their day and we have to make way for the new crowd."

If a house is in a good state, it doesn't need restoration. If it has been neglected, or modified in inappropriate ways, sensitive refurbishment, restoring as much as possible of the original while satisfying modern requirements, seems entirely appropriate.

So, how does that apply to songs?

If a song has been collected in a dilapidated state, restoration with verses or lines from other versions or from print seems reasonable. If a song is in good shape, there is no need to do anything other than to sing it, but a new singer, like a new house owner, may wish to make some changes according to their personal tastes and requirements, e.g. modern plumbing in the house or using an instrument to support the voice.

Opinions are bound to differ as to how much should be changed and how much should be preserved, but there is a fundamental difference of philosophy between those who try to be faithful to the original character (however successful or unsuccessful they may be in that) and those who take the Barry Bucknell approach, seeing only the need for modernity and obliterating the original character. As far as I can see, Jim and theleveller are on the same side in that.

Richard