I think Martin Carthy has been at least Lloyd's equal in tinkering and recreating, but so far as I know has never tried to claim folk authenticity for his work.

I also think that most aficionados of trad are romantics at heart whose interest in and enjoyment of the songs is connected with a desire to get back in touch with a defunct and therefore exotic-seeming past.

This adds an extra aesthetic dimension to the question of altering songs - which, of course, can range from trivial unconscious changes to out and out forgery.

If we hear Lloyd sing a tinkered up song without telling us, we (OK,* I*) fancy a vicarious experience with 19th century folk culture.

When we hear Martin Carthy sing one of his own, often more extensively adapted pastiches, we're fully aware that much of what we're hearing is not only modern, but straight from the mind of Martin Carthy.

It's a different kind of experience, at least for me.

As students of folksong, Vic and Richard are right: like Carthy, Lloyd had an obligation to tell us what was real and what was Memorex (as the TV commercials used to say). But to do so would have changed the experience.

I'm not at all criticizing Carthy, nor defending Lloyd's practice (which I've criticized on other threads). I'm just noting what may be an interesting aesthetic point.