I don't think there is anything wrong with interpretations. That's what a discussion is. People look for evidence and then develop interpretations from the evidence. Then the conversation continues. More evidence is introduced, and interpretations are revised. People debate the quality of the evidence, and the strength or validity of how interpretations are using that evidence. That's what this thread (conversation) has been about.
Not all "evidence" that the discussants have ever seen in their entire lives is logged into this one thread. That would be tedious and unnecessary, since the discussants are aware of most of that already. For example, there is another Mudcat thread about Lloyd's "The Wild Goose Shanty" in which you participated. However, you did much the same there as I think you've been doing there: you didn't engage with the specifics.
I am glad to engage with you about the discussions of evidence and interpretation if you are willing. You have asked me to be more explicit about the evidence for my interpretation, which, it is true, I did not explicitly provide because the *engaged participants* in this thread are already aware of it or at least aware what I'm getting at.
However, I am reluctant to do the tedious work of rehashing all that exposition which has been discussed before because so far you have showed a disposition to ignore evidence. Frankly, I think it is rich that you ask for such an evidentiary process now when there is so much you have already ignored and when you have dismissed that process as not *worth* engaging in.
So, if I am to dance to your tune, you need to give something back. I will not outline the evidence and argumentation that forms my interpretation —which there is, and for you to blindly assert that there is none is not called for— unless you are willing to submit to the same process.
The question is why Lloyd would submit the example of a song in the way that *he created* it, not in the way he found it (and whereas what he found was very different than what he created) to make a claim about the shanty genre. The disturbing issue is that the workshop presenters at the recent Glasgow Shanty Festival also used Lloyd's creation to demonstrate some supposed fact about the genre. They did this, I believe, despite all common sense. That is, whereas Lloyd's manufacture of the song is not common knowledge, and I would therefore hesitate to criticism action without that knowledge, there is a factor of common sense that should prevail nevertheless: One cannot (or is very likely not to) do a rhythmic action to a non-rhythmic song. What inhibited the triumph of common sense? I suggest that it is an extraordinary faith-based belief in Lloyd, which is one of the greater problems that this conversation seeks to address.