I think that quite a lot of the criticism that has been voiced on this thread is probably has some validity, but I can't help wondering why it is voiced. Surely if you are not happy with the standard of performance at your local club, then the answer is either to become involved with the organisation yourself and see whether you can introduce the changes you would like, or alternatively to start a different club that runs in the way you feel is appropriate. If you are not prepared to do either of these, then why feel you have the right to criticise other people's efforts? After all - if there is an audience at all at the clubs you are citing, then they must suit some people, and those people have as much right to their pleasure as you do.

I am not directing this objection at any particular person, so please, don't any contributors take it personally. It's just that as I have read through the thread I can't help but sympathise with Dick, who seems keen to find positive things to say. Like him I find there are clubs that suit my tastes better than others, and at least three have them have been mentioned already as good examples of 'well run' clubs. But NONE of those three ever vetoes performers for being sub-standard, on guest nights or any other. They are wonderful places to visit because they are welcoming to all and over the years I have seen many 'folk virgins' become valuable members because they can feel that.

If some people are 'put off' by the 'low standards' or amateurish performances, then they have the right not to return. But I know that just as many people are encouraged by the spectrum of standards that they find to perhaps try themselves. After all, if all you see at a club is accomplished, professional performances, then you are likely to think 'I can't do that'. But if you hear a few less polished items being equally supported, that may just give you the courage you need to begin to sing. And there are not many other opportunities to make that first step these days.

Why are 'well run' folk clubs important? Not to preserve the music. We have a wealth of archive material for that, and the purists would argue that the time has past for that now anyway. Precious few folk club performers are source singers any more. Not to put more bums on seats. That's a commercial concern and may be important for the preservation of a particular building's use, or a particular person's salary, but it's not the reason for the existence of most folk clubs. For me they are important because it's a great thing to be able to feel the power of song, and to share it with friends, and a folk club can do that. The clubs vary a lot because different groups of people find different ways of accessing the music, or place more or less importance on the songs/friendship. But they are each important to the people that attend them, and it's not my place to tell them to conform to MY ideal.

If your concern is that the purity of traditional songs is maintained, or that we must be ever striving for innovative ways to present them then I respect your right to continue to collect, archive, study or perform in ways that support your view. And I will probably be your most attentive audience member if you come to my local club. But the 'amateur' efforts of a few poeple who are less talented than you, or who work too hard to be able to practise as much as they would like, or who suffer too badly with nerves to be able to present a song professionally even when they have spent three months practicing it will not be what stops folk clubs surviving. More likely it will be the intolerance of those who would rather abandon them in favour of ivory towers.