"but that wouldn't disqualify him as a ballad scholar."
No, of course it wouldn't Brian, but it would limit his scope of information, as it would all academics
My point has been, from the beginning, that our assessment of folk song has to be based on a sum of all knowledge and opinion
If we don't attempt that, the further in time we move from our living traditions, the less becomes the likelihood of reaching a satisfactory conclusion
I've always been amused by the "a camel is a horse designed by I committee" saying, but I've never really believed it.
I can't help but remind people that Child's scholarship has come into question here when it has suited people's arguments to do so.

I believe that a great number of opportunities have been lost by treating our understanding of folk-song as a fashion item and replacing one theory by another, rather than incorporating them all into a grand whole - I think that the former my be what is happening here.
An example; when Sharp and his colleges were doing their bit for folk culture, a popular concept was the 'communal origins' theory - 'Some Conclusions' advocates it to a degree, shortly afterwards, Gummere wrote about it at length.
Next minute - pouf - it was gone
Three quarters of a century later groups of Irish Travellers were found to be composing their own folk songs communally within a still living tradition - the same appears to have been the case in rural Ireland

For me, this is the importance of MacColl's 'Song Carriers' statement; all aspects of song-making need to be examined
Once you start insisting on definititive 90% plus origins based on one single theory of song-making, advocating for any other aspect is pissing in a very high gale.
I think it's time to move on from single-minded theories and unassailable academics and genuinely start to co-operate to pool our ideas.

"Vic Gammon has always performed. That seems important."
I agree absolutely Pseu; I think it is when you put the songs in our mouth and actually taste the flavour, it is then you come to realise the thought and emotion that is gone into their making

I think that, had Bert Lloyd come onto the research scene later, when younger singers in the revival were actually thinking about the songs they were singing, he would have been a better scholar than he was; as it was, he was one of the best popularisers of serious folk song I ever came across.
MacColl got a lot of things wrong about his songs, but he got far more right about them - he did his homework and he put the results into their singing

I found some of the booklets of notes that came with the early albums - Folkways, Riverside and to a lesser extent but still high up the scale, Topic, almost as enjoyable as the albums themselves.
On the other hand, I know of researchers who sing who leave me cold, sometimes on both aspects of their work

Must go - shower - breakfast - Codeword and off to a singing workshop
Have a great day all
Jim