I would agree with Ron that the history can enrich our understandings but doesn't have to be the reason for us to listen. (From what I know of John P I think he would agree, too. Am I right, John?) My own invocation of academic folklore scholarship was more or less to point out that even in that community, the idea that consciouness of audiences spoils folk music is a discarded relic of theory.

But I also think that applying only the criterion "does it sound good" (by which John presumably means "to me") would be a little solipsistic. When singing or playing (or doing anything) humans are sensitive to what others think. If everyone except you hated an arrangement, you would think about changing it, no? So I agree that "who cares what instruments someone else thinks you should play" on the one hand. But when that someone becomes many, you might care.

Also, when it comes to listening to music as opposed to playing it, I think it IS important to bear in mind the history, the way it is supposed to be played in its own country, etc. Most people, listening to a Harry Cox record, would think "this guy can't sing worth a shit" because they are ignorant of the standards to which Cox should be compared. So was Cox a lousy singer? I don't think so, because I have trained myself to a rudimentary understanding of that tradition. Now I enjoy it; but before I got interested in the history and tradition of it I never gave it much of a chance. It would have been my loss if I had remained ignorant of that history.

The way communities maintain continuity in folk tradition is through the conservative element, who express the opinions Micaelr mentions above. John's attitude of exploration and not giving a fig is, on the other hand, how folk music changes over time. Both these forces are necessary to keep folk traditions alive and well. So thanks to Toadfrog AND to JohnP! The music would be poorer without you!