There are a couple of different threads here masquerading as one.

This is a contribution to the "folk music versus classical training" part of the thread, not the "competition" part of the thread.

"Folk music" is being used in at least two different senses here. That's OK by me.

There's "folk music" in greg stephens' sense:
"I do strongly believe it is very very very difficult for a classically trained musician to play folk music"

There's "folk music" in Don Firth's sense:
"I take a dim view of people who try to discourage others from taking lessons or say that formal training will spoil you for folk music."

What is going on? Is this a tomato/tomahto thing or is there more to it than that?

The "what is folk music?" threads are notorious on mudcat.
So, I am not interested in choosing between greg and Don. I am not interested in praising one for the correct use of the term and damning the other for misusing the term.

Also, I am not interested in clarifying Don's use of the term. He can do way better than me.

I am interested in clarifying greg's use of the term because he and I are more or less in the same camp.

So.......

Consider if you will, "Devil ate the groundhog", a tune played by central WV fiddlers and Eastern KY fiddlers.

Even if a central WV fiddler and an Eastern KY fiddler play exactly the same notes, the performances will sound very different. So who's doing it right?

Neither, and both.

It is these delicious differences that lead me to disagree completely with Richard Dyer-Bennet when he says "The value lies inherent in the song, not in the regional mannerisms or colloquialisms."

The problem with Rick D-B's claim is the word "The" in the phrase "The value". I claim that "value" is much more complicated than he thinks.

I agree that there is "a" value which is "inherent in the song". "Devil ate the groundhog" is a great tune in and of itself and independent of "regional mannerisms or colloquialisms." But that is just one aspect or level of the song's value. In some situations it might not even be the more important one.

"Devil ate the groundhog" as performed by Paul David Smith (Eastern KY fiddler) has whole new layers or aspects of value. It's the precisely the "regional mannerism or colloquialisms" that Paul David provides and Rick D-B dismisses that provide these additional layers or aspects of value.

So when I politely and humbly suggest (HAH!) that classical training might just possibly cause issues in the performance of folk music, this is the kind/type/sort/species/variety of folk music I am talking about.

Surely, no matter what definition one uses, Paul David Smith is clearly a folk musician and "Devil ate the groundhog" is clearly folk music. But just as clearly Paul David is not a folk musician in quite the same way that Don is a folk musician. And just as clearly "Devil ate the groundhog" as performed by Paul David is not folk music in quite the same way that "Devil ate the groundhog" as performed by Don is folk music.

Remember, I am not denying the Don is a folk musician playing folk music, and doing a wonderful job of it.

So my point is:
IF you want to be a folk musician along the lines of Paul David rather than along the lines of Don,
More specifically,
IF you want to play the fiddle tunes of Eastern KY,
AND you only have one lifetime to do it,
AND you are not a musical ubermensch,
THEN you need to think seriously about some questions:
1) Why not cut to the chase and focus on Eastern KY fiddlers and fiddling?
2) Since you are interested in precisely the "regional mannerisms or colloquialisms" that Rick D-B and the classical music establishment are not interested in, why would you use any of the limited time, energy, and talent you have for classical training?
3) Since classical training MIGHT make it more difficult later to embody those "regional mannerisms or colloquialisms" in your playing, why bother?