Responding now to Heylin; he is perhaps unfair to Roud in ascribing ignorance of song histories to him. He says Roud's stuff seems only to go back to 1765, 325 years after Child #1 was first noted down.

I looked through my copy of Bishop and Roud's Penguin Book of songs, and discovered one where they noted that Child (the expert cited by Heylin) had missed something. Forget which one now!

I think it is unfair of Heylin to Roud to state out of context that he believes 'origins don't matter'.

And I imagine that some who take an 'origins' view of the 'correct' definition of 'folk' might agree that this review tends to take cheap shots and does not do Roud justice.

It would be interesting to know where Heylin thinks anybody is going to find the material to produce the book he wants about the 'centuries' when folk music was 'part of a thriving, and largely oral, British tradition', even leaving aside the rather broad brush approach suggested by the word 'British'.


I'm not certain Heylin read past the introduction, to be honest.