"More misrepresentation."
More aggression
I may have mistaken your point, I have not misrepresented it - if I have, I apologise.
The term did not have a broader meaning - it referred specifically to the social group which they believe all the different aspects - dance, lore, tales, customs, music... etc originated from - 'the common people' for the want of a better term.
The conference was made up of different national groups; from what I can gather, and difficulties in reaching a consensus arose from the fact that some aspects applied differently from nation to nation.
might have this wrong, but I've just downloaded David Bearman's thesis on the subject - wouldn't want to be accused of making things up.
There has never been any question of newly made songs becoming part of the tradition - I've made the point over and over again about both Traveller songs and am now embarking on putting together local songs that were written during the lifetimes of the singers we recorded them from - there seem to have been several hundred of them within a twenty mile radius of this small west of Ireland town alone.
One of the outstanding features of most of them is they are of unknown authorship and have been absorbed into the community here, which is what has made them folk songs.
All of this is a far cry from the 'anything goes' argument that is being applied to the term here - I may have missed it, but I don't recall your having stating your own opinion on that one.
"Taken with you calling me an "arrogant little pratt" earlier in the thread, "
I called you an arrogant little pratt after these two staments
"If you came to our club and started to jump up and down and demand your money back every time somebody sang a song that you felt didn't fit the 1954 definition then, yes, you would be asked to leave."
"The trouble is, you are very selective in your reading. You seize on every crumb, no matter how obscure or dubious, if it supports your case while brushing aside anything that doesn't fit your prejudices."
Neither are an accurate description of my attitude and we have been arguing long enough for you to know that.
"If you disagree with what I have to say, have the decency and honesty to to address what I have to say and not make things up" - was a direct response to your having written "Jim would have us believe, there are no other traditional clubs in the country" - which is simply untrue - I have never made such a statement, nor do I believe it - you made it up.
The tenor of your responses to my postings ranges from patronising "I'' probably regret asking this..." to one of open aggression.
I realise I should learnt to tolerate people like you (you're not the only one who can be patronising) but there really is no need for your constant open animosity - we are supposed do want the same thing out of the music.
"i would just like to testify that i have expressed no untruths"
You have had ample opportunity to prove my having denigrated Tommy Armstrong "and many others" - you choose not to.
Your silence on the subject speaks volumes.
You and Muskie have chosen to insult those who disagree with you and to denigrate our music - go or stay, it makes little difference to me - "Stand not upon your going, but go" as the man said.
"some rubbish definition" sums up the level of your contribution to this deebate
Jim Carroll