"It is not the case that my summary of Child arises from any bent towards 'dismantling and undermining the work of the past'."
Not just yours pseu - since I became involved in this argument it has become increasingly obvious that in order to accept the basic tenets of this book it is necessary to forgt everything you thought you know and start again
I should have realised this from day one when half a century's experience was swept aside as "starry-eyed" naivety
I just don't buy any of it, especially as the only way these ideas could possibly be taken seriously is to remove the idea that folk song is in any way unique, but is, as the 90% pus academic claims, the products of a fore-runner of the present pop scene and created for profit (I've dug out the quote often enough, and am happy to do so again)
This contradicts virtually everything I and virtually all folk song enthusiasts from day one have come to regard as folk song
I began to suspect an agenda when these percentages were applied also to folk tales, music and dance.
I'll need far more than unprovable claims that the first editions of all this appeared in print or in Pleasure Gardens productions
The structure and function of folk songs as distinct from the broadside "russh-job" approach to song making is indicative of which way to look for me and comparing to to song-making in Ireland, Britain's nearest neighbour, confirms that even more

I have read Child fairly extensively and have never been left with the impression that he liked folk song particularly - he worked at them as as a sudy ing as aspect of culture
Mind you - he did try his hand at songmaking - made quite a good job of it too
Jim