Traditional? Ugh. It's hard to figure out, sometimes. I don't have answers. On the other hand, taking the example of Beatles songs, I generally would not consider them traditional. Many of them meet criterion #2 above. But they don't meet criterion #1; people learned them from Beatles records, not other people. Which is why we have criterion #1, even if it is hard to apply.
quote Robert above
I do not consider them traditional, they are compositions for which royalties are being paid to Members of the Beatles, I would be interested to be a fly on the wall, when somebody went round to Maccas house and said that scholars say they are tradtional so you must pay the royalties back, legally they are lennon McCartney compositions, or Harrison OR occasionally Starkey. they are still not Trad, even if they have been learned by ear from a next door neighbour, it is not just that they have been learned off a recording,
that is the weakness of the following earlier quote
That leaves "Traditional," which is the one term which has a slightly fuzzy definition. There are two parts often cited:
1. Songs which have been handed down from person to person, usually orally That leaves "Traditional," which is the one term which has a slightly fuzzy definition. There are two parts often cited:
1. Songs which have been handed down from person to person, usually orally
2. Songs which people consider their own, so that they have the right to modify them
Note that having an unknown author is not part of either of these. which brings us to Music hall songs which have known composers, and which royalties are still being paid.
they may be good songs but[imo] they are not traditional, someone is collecting money for them, that is their legal entitlement