This is certainly one of the most thoughtful and thought provoking threads I've ever encountered on Mudcat. The input has been polite, balanced and most insightful.

At the risk of thread creep, I should like to ask, at what point does the revival singer become the source singer? My reasons for this query are as follows.

Last fall, a younger singer, who has been part of our sessions for some years, asked if he might come by my house with a tape recorder to start getting some of my songs. Of course I immediately acquiesced - a real ego boost for this old greybeard. Shortly after, I learned that the state arts council had money for
"Traditional Arts Apprenticeships." We got our paperwork together and sent it in and should be hearing in the next week or so.

Like most of you, I have gleaned my songs from people, books, and recordings. Many, if not most of them, have been recorded by others and are, therefore, available to anyone who knows where to look. However, i do know that, for good or ill, I no longer sing most of these exactly the way I first learned them.

Sometimes a word or phrase has been changed due to a flawed memory, too much beer, or on purpose. In some instances, I have put two or more versions of a song together to fill it out. At other times, a discovery to do with the source of the song, its historical context or social setting has resulted in a change of tone or inflexion. And of course tunes never remain static.

Your thoughts and comments will be appreciated -- Tom

BTW, the section from mustrad that Mikeof Northumbria cited is wel worth the read.