The full title should have been: "UK folk scene - do clubs have a future, and how to secure it"; in other words, a more positive approach than simply an autopsy. Perhaps a clone could amend the thread title accordingly?

We know that the majority of folk clubs are struggling to maintain numbers; when you add to that the pressures (and costs) linked to licencing, pub chains opting for no live music, the struggle to find a decent venue and the inevitable - albeit slower than inflation - rise in performers' fees, many clubs are living hand-to-mouth and some are closing (two announcements this month alone). We know that the folk club scene is nowhere near as vibrant as it was in the 60s and 70s. This is more about survival than revival, at least for the clubs, if not necessarily for the folk scene in general. Being linked to the running of Herga, I clearly have an interest in this.

There is such an enormous variety in the 120+ clubs I have visited in the last 5 years in terms of venue quality, entrance cost, membership or not, raffle or not (and how many prizes)... And also in the numbers and type of people they attract, and how they go about promoting their venue. Some are clearly doing at least some things right, others equally clearly are coasting towards (presumably) an eventual grinding-to-a-halt.

What are the causes for the falling numbers, then, and what are the trends impacting club audience sizes today, and how to deal with them?

One cause is that we are not moving with the times in terms of audiences' needs; the simple truth is that every 12 months the average audience age goes up by 1 year for most clubs (yes, I know there are notable exceptions - but don't just simply post here to brag about it, tell us HOW you achieve it); the folk club scene in the UK appears overall like a baby-boomer generation phenomenon, destined to disappear in another 10 or 20 years. The small-talk in the breaks is as much about reminiscing as about the havoc the cold weather plays with the knees, and much less about the future, hopes and aims. We are stilted, set in our ways, and of course the youngsters see it and run a mile - we would have too, once. What we see as entertainment, is not their idea of fun. And as a generation they are much more cynical about the future and do not necessarily sympathise with much of the starry-eyed 60s and 70s repertoire (Where Have All the Flowers Gone etc), neither do they want the commitment and cliquiness implied (fairly or not) by club membership.

Neither do we seem to be able to capture the emerging 40-year olds, whose children are now older and therefore they could start having a life again; the folk club scene is unknown to most of them, the image perpetuated by the media is unattractive, and as a generation they have pretty much forgotten how to sing or play, being more used to passive entertainment. And sure as hell, they won't be seen dead in some of the club venues.

That's another issue. In the 60s it was OK to be gathering shoulder-to-shoulder in an upstairs pub room; it was not the venue that attracted us, but the explicit or implied membership in something alternative, our love for the music, our politics even. The out-of-the-way venues added to that "clubiness" rather than detract from it. These motives don't apply to those that follow us, and suddenly the dingyness of some of the venues is starting to be noticed. And those that take their entertainment passively (rather than participatively) are critical of any fluffs in performance or in-jokes or waffling in introductions. The very things that used to reinforce our "clubiness" now work against us. Heck, people could stay home with a six-pack and watch some professional (if inane) concert on the telly, for less money! No, if they will pay a tenner each, they want some guarantee that THEY will enjoy THEMSELVES, not watch others doing so. And when they have to go to the loo, they want it to smell as sweet as the Hilton's.

That is an area where clubs like Les Worrall's (Faldingworth Live) and Dartford, and Montrose and Hitchin etc score well. Neat, comfortable venues, clean facilities, minimum introductions, emphasis on quality of performance - and lo! some previously non-folkies are trickling through the door.

Promotion is another very variable factor. I have seen all permutations, from distributing fliers to other clubs in the region (preaching to the converted), posters in the local library, ads in the local freebie papers, websites and email campaigns to paid ads in reputable magazines and promotion through local radio (sometimes with a pre-gig artist interview). Clearly, the early mentions in that list would do little to attract new punters, and they are the only methods the poorer clubs can afford, so a downward spiral seems inevitable there without investment.

The comes a touchy subject: the predilections and preferences of the organisers, both in how the club is run and the bookings the go for, also vary enormously. All organisers do it for the love of it, but they interpret that love in different ways: Often they are influenced by personal musical likes and dislikes and they promote the former and discourage the latter. Even committee-run clubs do this, unsurprisingly, as committee members generally are like-minded by virtue of the selection process for committee membership. It is a very forward-thinking club that goes out of its way to recruit committee members with widely varying tastes - hey, who needs the argument and aggro? Some, and I will use Les Worrall again as a shining example (Breezy is another, by the way), actually start from a "what will the audience stomach?" perspective, and several more at least try to. But very few approach the subject from a purely business perspective, i.e. how to maximise revenue or bums on seats; and why should they? they are not in it for money, they are dedicated, hard-working amateurs and it is right and proper that they should get some fun out of it for themselves too.

This aspect puts them in conflict with the touring performers, who of course are doing it at least partly for money, and would dearly love to see the clubs taking the same approach. In the words of a Big Name who shall remain nameless: "The trouble with trying to make money out of folk is that we are trying to be professionals employed by amateurs" - and he did NOT mean it derogatorily, but as an honest assessment of his career's chances.

Yet the folk scene is not dying. Festivals are doing well, generally. Bands like Bellowhead fill huge venues with non folkie youngsters. Cafes spring up, operated not as clubs but as "open mic" events. And there are some sessions (like the Half-Moon on Sunday nights in Oxford) where the ages truly mix, audience and beginners rub shoulders with seasoned professionals, tunes alternate with repectfully listened-to songs, you have to plan a visit to the loo and combine it with getting a round in - because of the crowds - like in the old days, and the craic is fantastic.

It's a case of horses for courses, of course. Sessions like the Half-Moon's have their place, and so have festivals and cafes. But what is the role of the average folk club in this changing scene? Clearly some will just continue on their current tack, to close eventually when audiences drop below survival level or when the organiser is too old and no-one else is willing to take on the thankless task. But it doesn't have to be so for all clubs, surely?