toadfrog says: "This is by no means to say that genuine folk-singers do not often bring to their singing a high degree of individuality. But this personal contribution is properly involuntary, inescapable , and below the level of conscious intention."

This sounds like toadfrog likes folk music, but doesn't have much respect for folk singers. People don't generally bumble about in an unconscious state. Do you really think that anybody who sings a lot where others can hear them doesn't think about what they are doing? One doesn't need to be a professional performer to perform, and it is human nature to try to put your best foot (or voice) forward.

More toadfrog: "A recent collector in Alabama, Byron Arnold, has significantly registered his impressions in this regard. "These songs," he writes, "were sung quietly, naturally, never dramatically, and entirely without the mannerisms and cliches of the concert soloist."

Of course they lack the mannerisms and cliches of the concert soloist. They have the mannerisms and cliches of the southern singer. And without knowing what Byron Arnold considers to be mannerisms and cliches, it is impossible to have this statement mean anything. Does he mean the horrible renditions of operatically trained sopranos trying to do folk songs? Are people like Martin Carthy, Ralph Stanley, Jody Stecher, Alan Stivell, and Marta Sebestien using icky mannerisms and cliches, or are they "genuine" singers?

toadfrog: "It was as if each song, as I heard it, was a creation by the singer for the satisfaction of an inner compulsion."

Do you really think anyone plays folk music in any style on any instrument for any reason other than the satisfaction of an inner compulsion? What, do you think any of us are getting rich or something?

John Peekstok