"Perhaps your concept of "traditional" or "folk" is simply irrelevant to what Roud is investigating? He's looking at the songs people actually sang, and the social praxis of singing."

My point exactly Jack.
Roud deliberately chose Loyd's title for his book, indicating they are on the same subject - they are not
That is misleading and it is exactly this that has been taken up by reviewers - that out folk sons were not made by the folk
What point would there be in adding to that condusion
Roud has cornered the market on the term 'folk song' - he is rightfully highly regarded for his work - now he has shot off at a tangent by lumping folk and non-folk material into this numbering system
His numnbering system is limited to his own personal tastes and will continue to be until 'Oobla Dee, Oobla Dah' and 'The Birdie Song' are given Roud numbers - that's what 'the folk' are singing now
If you believe that is not what he is doing, I think you need to say what you think he is doing.
The fact to phrase what people are sayin as "I don't believe that is Roud's intention' is an indication to me that what he IS saying wasn't stated clearly enough in the first place
There really shouldn't be any room for doubt or misinterpretation in a book of that size and importance.
Folk song scholarship needs to be an assembled assessment of all the work, not the constant replacement of past knowledge with new thoughts - as this one spectacularly is
Definitions on dead subjects need to be 'definite' unless and until new information comes to light otherwise they become opinions based on personal taste of something none of us played a part in the making of
No way to run a piss-up in a brewery, never mind something as important as folk culture
Jim Carroll