Anyway. Jim said The BBC has nothing to do with folk songs and he replied that he already said that.

Err.. I wasn't patting you on the back, merely laughing at the absurdity of your statement.

Still, nice to see you getting support from places where confusion is only the start of their problems...

Meanwhile, for the rest of us, I am as ever looking forward to seeing how the full range of that nebulous genre "folk" gets on in that annual entertainment that is the BBC Radio 2 Folk Awards.

By the way Jim, if you must give a definition of folk, watch out. You hardly scratched the surface of the musical genre. I recall as a teenager being in a punk band, we raged against the corporate pop music industry because ours was (and I'll quote you here) "music of the people, created by the 'ordinary' people.."

Perhaps if you limit your comments to the very narrow field within "folk" which you revere, you might sound more credible but the more you rant, the more odd they sound and easy it is to dismiss your comments. As many have pointed out, in a narrow field within folk, you are rather knowledgable but your insistence of claiming 5% to be 100% is up there with your mate Akenaton. Well done.



This is about the awards, I suppose the main topics for constructive debate would be

1. Does a wide enough range of talent and style get to be nominated?
2. Is competition a good way to promote a musical genre to the wider public?

Everything else is stodgy gravy.