More generally, much of this discussion seems to reflect the difference between preserving a tradition , in the sense of maintaining some perceived, fixed integrity and keeping a tradition alive in the sense of accepting that change is inevitable. In the latter case, we can only try to ensure that any changes WE (as individuals) make contribute to the song's longevity rather than hasten its demise!

Can I be a bit rude here and say this is complete bullshit?

Which would make us parrots rather than creative singers - crackers!.

You miss my point. The creativity of being a Revival Singer is in the sourcing, learning & (ultimately) the singing of a song. None of us are parrots, or wannabes in this respect (Tonight, Matthew, I'm going to be... Paddy Tunney!) (actually you get far more imitation of Revival singers but that's another issue). What we do is by way of Revival Conceit, not by way of Continuing a Tradition (see GUEST,^&*'s post above - how many others feel this way I wonder?) It is this innability to differentiate between Revival and Traditional that is the most troubling thing here.

I often stop and ponder how different the status of Traditional Song would have been if it wasn't for The Revival messing things up and generally obscuring trhings. If all we had were the collected archives and field-recordings, might there be a greater value accorded to Traditional Song by way of our Genuine Island Heritage on a par with Chaucer, Shakespeare etc. etc.? Just a thought as I say, for folk is my country too, but, as with This England, I oft despair at the way we treat it in the name of Progress or the way it's governed in the name of Tradition!