Ah, the annual repeats of the same arguments are upon us, I see; must be the season. Not that I disagree with much that's been said, but I would have thought that the futility of it all might have dawned on us by now. In a genre as wide (and lending itself to such a wide set of diverse interpretations) as "folk" the chances of all of us agreeing on any single set of awards would be miniscule anyway. So we just end up agreeing or disagreeing that "X is good", where x= artist/song/album.

As this particular set of awards is industry-driven (it is fairly well known how the nominations are arrived at), to try and judge it by our (mainly) club-going folk standards makes little sense. It is what it is, it has the value that it has and no more. It can never truly represent such a diverse genre and it can never satisfy the different perceptions of the genre, from festivallers to club members, from revivalists to contemporarists (my word), from acoustic introspectors to tune-pedlars.

One way to see these awards is by the ticket you normally have to pay to see any of the acts nominated. I believe we are talking £8-£15 here, depending on the environment/venue. The £2-£7 range of artists is not represented - it cannot be, of course, in such industry-driven awards which reward commercial (monetary) impact.

But this does not make Bill Whaley & Dave Fletcher any less worthwhile, in my book, or any less involved in the continuancxe of the genre. Or Martyn Wyndham-Read, Johnny Collins, Dave Webber & Anni Fentiman, Ian Giles & Graham Metcalfe, Keith Kendrick, Lynne Heraud, Craig/Morgan/Robson, Robb Johnson, Leon Rosselson and so on.

Yes, you could argue that the highest paid acts are the best anyway, and this is proven by the higher ticket price they command. But remember - this is folk, where commercialism alone is not the sole criterium of value.