'You have agreed that to take into consideration all aspects of the song tradition (a holistic approach) is a way forward, yet you have never gone beyond arguing that you have managed to trace the earliest printed version, then arrogantly declared (not argued) that this must be the source, and when challenged you provide 'what ifs' rather than results of research (which appear to have been made up on the spot).'

>>Jim,
You are a member of the TSF. If you go to the TSF website you will find a reasonably detailed summary of the paper I delivered at the first Broadside Day run jointly by the EFDSS and TSF at Cecil Sharp House.

>>I might also remind you that on at least 2 occasions I have offered/challenged you to choose an agreed number of ballads at random from the aforementioned corpus and we will discuss their probable origins together. That offer is still open.

    'Throughout these arguments you have claimed you must be right because of the number of who agree with you.'

>>Not so. I simply mentioned that a lot of very clever people agreed with it. My conviction is based on my own research, not their approval.


   'sneered at the work of others as 'naive' and 'romantic'.'

>>Guilty as charged!!!!


    'You appear to have done no fieldwork on the subject yourself; if you have, you have never produced it.'

>>Not sure what you mean by this, most of the results of my fieldwork in the 60s and 70s can be listened to on the British Library Sound Archive website. I thought you were aware of this. Published book 'An East Riding Songster 1982. Co-edited the new edition of 'Marrow Bones' with Malcolm, 2007, which you would do well to read. (Numerous articles in English Dance and Song and on the Musical Traditions website.)

   'You appear to be unaware of the numerous functions of the tradition to the people who passed on these songs, in the case of Lord Lovel you had to ask if there were singers who took Lord Lovel as anything other than a burlesque song, ignorant of the fact that some of our best traditional singers did so.'

>>You are not reading my postings. Not once have I stated that all versions of LL are comic. I'm well aware of multiple meanings of songs found in oral tradition. You didn't seem to be aware of the burlesque side of things.   

   'You have passed off with a feeble on-the—spot excuse the fact that historically our traditional songs have always been regarded as "country songs" that have made their way onto broadsides.

>>This is the political stance set up in the early 1900s by the likes of Sharp in order to sell his wares and put over the idealised world of merry England. These people all had their own collections of broadsides and were well aware where the songs originated. It didn't suit their purposes to make this widely known at the time. As I said, Jim, you are somewhat out of touch with current thinking. About a century behind.

'you are asking us to take your beliefs on trust/faith, without tangible evidence.'


>>And this is exactly what you're doing. Snap!