This appears to have moved on from undermining the validity of the singers reputations as 'tradition bearers' to attacking the work carried out by 'revival' collectors (Jim Carrol).

Jim, I thought it started out that way.

Until someone tells us how Walter knew that some songs went back to the 18th century so that he could then notice that the tunes were different repeating his view leaves a big gap in the logic - it is a circular argument.

But none of the knowlegable writers have disagreed with the general idea or what he says about the structure of the later songs. We don't know how he 'knew' that some songs were old, but we do know how he knew that many were more recent.

I don't think the possibility that a newer ballad with an old-sounding tune could slip past Walter (or the folklorists) devalues Walter's observations. But I am skeptical when Walter's view is used by someone else as evidence in another debate especially when his own caveat "nine time out of ten" is not included.

One of the English folksong book writers (not sure if it was Sharp or Lloyd) did a tally of the modes used in songs. The results show that although clasically trained musicians make a fuss about the unfamilar- to-them modes a lot of the old tunes are actually in a major key. The medieval churchy types didn't call it 'modus lascivous' for nothing.