I think I understand where Harvey is coming from, Raggytash, and if so, I agree. But class definitions are so fluid, you'd need more than a pint to sort this one out. I know well educated Sun/Daily Mail readers and manual labourers who read the Observer and Independent.

I agree also with the (newly legitimised? no longer GUEST? welcome!) Martin Gibson about the value of the light hearted and entertaining patter to introduce songs. Giving a lift to Vin Garbutt this last summer, I asked about his patter (he is one of the masters) and he said that as a performer he has to spend just as much attention to this as he does to ensuring the guitar is in tune and his voice in pitch; he considers the "patter" essential to balance out the evening, given that the majority of his songs are about "misery of one sort or another" (his words). And then, I saw him arriving at the gig knackered, take a big breath and go out and give a cracking evening to the punters - the consummate performer.

On the navel-gazing singer/songwriters: Yep, many of them have tried and will always try to break into the scene. But folk is at least as much about content, as it is about presentation. That is one of its distinctions from pop (where it is all about presentation and let the content go hang). Such introverts are weeded out naturally in folk, they simply don't get asked back.

(what's this I found? nah, just a bit of fluff...)