"You seem to be implying that reverance for the old traditions and commercialism are the only two choices. Is that really what you think? Don't you think there is a way of playing traditional music that isn't based on commercialism but does incorporate experimentation and the conscious introduction of new elements?"

short answer...yes, but not being "based on commercialism" does not exclude influenced by and guided by commercial efforts. Very few artists create in a vacuum..they see and hear things and react, even when they are really trying to be innovative...and what is happening in the commercial realm is hard to exclude from one's awareness.

as to my all-too-compact statement: "Traditional music always changes as generations change, but when it was part OF a tradition it didn't change nearly so fast or suddenly."

I simply meant that when the songs were being sung on the front porch, with no thought or even concept of recordings and 'professional' singing, they tended to remain more stable..(and often were 'owned' by a single performer in a community and seldom done publicly by others)..thus keeping the same 'version' intact longer.

With recording and commercialism, there was a lot more distance between the writer/artist/performer and the listener who thought "hey, maybe I'll learn that one...but it needs a better tune and some new verses, and maybe a faster pace"...

and regarding your observation.."Or perhaps there is a tradition again. It's just not the same as the tradition that existed 100 years ago. But young folks still learn the old music from the older folks in their communities."

I feel that there an equivocation here on the word 'tradition'...sure, there is ALWAYS a tradition, but words are slippery critturs! When I refer to *the way it was before it was recorded and made available to large audiences...etc...etc...*, I need a word that means THAT. If you simply call whatever is the current state of things 'the tradition', it seems to imply that the 'old' state and the 'new' state are equal, or similar, or equivalant...or somehow merged and no distinction is needed.....but since "young folks learning from the older folks" is MUCH less common and colored by other influences these days -(I can argue this..for now I am just stating it)- it might be safer to save THE tradition for reference to the older idea, and use some other construct for 'current trends' or 'fads'..

Yeah, I know...my desire to reserve words that way is not likely to meet with much enthusiasm..*grin*...it makes folks work too hard!...Antique dealers have fairly clear ways to distinguish between 'antiques' and 'collectables' and 'reproductions' and 'stylistic renditions'....I just wish music had a similar system, so that when I see a concert advertised, or browse in the CD bins, there could be labels advising me generally about what I can expect. (Note--I do not universally 'condemn'change or songwriters or interpreters....I just want awareness of what the differences are to more widely publicized...here at Mudcat, most regulars DO understand that Sara Ogun Gunning and Lorena McKinnet are in VERY different realms...but in a music store, they'd likely be tossed in the same bin...if 'ol Sara were there at all...*smile*)

gee...I was just gonna whip off a short reply...what was it we used to say in college? "Five pages? I don't have time to write a short paper!"