On the radio recently I heard someone say that the written word was not good for stories. Old stories that had been handed down orally had to be remembered, resulting in the best and most important bits being recalled and the rest lost or replaced. The story teller could improve and embellish as they passed the story on, so stories got better, more refined, and more satisfying with each re-telling - until people started to write them down. Then the stories became set in stone, with whatever faults and quirks they had at that point in time, and people felt they couldn't or shouldn't change them any more.

This set me thinking about traditional songs and ballads. Does some of this apply, do you think? I often think that older ballads (and tunes too) have qualities that are hard to surpass, whereas some more recent songs have glaring faults that no one tries to fix because they're all set down in this or that songbook or collection. Obviously, if the song has a known writer, you have to be a bit cautious about editing (although many recently composed songs are badly flawed), but when we find a song set down 100 years ago by one of the early song-collectors, as sung by some farmer or labourer, are we sometimes too inclined to sing it as printed, even if the lines don't scan or rhyme and the plot or dialogue is creaky?

Instrumental folkies often prefer to learn tunes by ear, and some insist that seeing it written down would spoil their playing in some way, but I never hear anyone say this about song lyrics.

This is not a "yes" or "no" question, really; it's more of a how-much-and-why question. To what extent have literacy, books, recordings and the internet (and even Mudcat!) slowed or stopped the evolutionary process that shapes and sharpens our songs? And does it matter? I have my own thoughts but I'd like to hear what others think.

Marje