Dave - I'm glad we cleared up about the playing - some of those guys are seriously good, and there was plenty of dexterity and sensitivity on display.

But I still think you may be confusing the subjective with the objective.

When you say "if we want to spread the music to wider audience it's got be appealing" you're making a very big assumption that it wasn't appealing to that wider audience. I don't think any of us really know - though we can be sure as eggs that the programme-makers and artists were aiming for such a result, and putting a lot of effort and resources into that outcome.

You were viewing it with informed eyes and ears from a very specialised and educated viewpoint. A vast majority of the audience were not.

I don't think I'm pushing things too far if I suggest that a majority of people here take folk music seriously. Not just the learning and presentation thereof, but the importance and cultural resonance thereof (I do myself).

It's both a good and a bad thing that folk music allows and even demands that its proponents take ownership of what is actually a musical commonwealth.

It's good because those who do so get far more out of the music than they would as mere consumers, and also because they then put back far more too. But it's bad when those inducted individuals start to behave as though they have somehow acquired quality control over the music - and begin to behave almost tribally about it.

I'm not accusing anyone of that here, but sometimes I read comments like those above and start to feel that we're seeing the thin end of that wedge.

The makers and artists in that show believed that their approach would deliver an appealing show. I think they did, but even if you didn't I hope you'd admit they had every right to try, should be given credit for doing so.

Tom