> any group that spends a lifetime studying historical material tends to remove itself from the sphere of the common people in that context.

The alternative, of course, is to let the material go unstudied.

Theough it's obviously true, if we take Steve's observation to heart, the "common people" become the only ones allowed to study it; yet, by lacking the education and methods that would make them "uncommon," they're unable to give much more than a few personal, subjective comments.

Lloyd and MacColl, for example, started out as "common people" in this sense but became writers and performers. So did Stan Hugill, who as a former "common person" was rather uncritical of his so-called "desk sources."

Singers who stayed "common" rarely had much to say about their songs, especially from a historical, sociological, or anthropological perspective.

How could they? Nor should others have left it at that.