I would not usually claim to have "seen the light". It would be self-aggrandising, and also suggest more than I mean.

One of the nice things about the English (and even the English middle class) is their usual modesty and slightly self-mocking self deprecation. Hence the very English "Good enough for folk" - it doesn't, truly, denigrate the music. It is the artist mocking himself lest anyone think him conceited.

I am reminded of a chap I once asked whether he fancied a game of squash. I was captain of the university team at the time, not because I was any good but because I was the only person who would take the job. His reply, seeking to decline, contained the expression "I'm quite good" - which I took then for a conceit, in that many competent players would have said "I get by" or "I'm not too bad".

I discovered later that he was being nicely English and modest: he was the then English UAU number 3 (the third best university age squash player in the country).

Don't assume I'm on your side, Lizzie. I am (I think) on the side of the music - the "folk" music that can and does evolve, but by absorption rather than invasion (hence my opposition to calling music that is not "folk" by that name no matter how good it may be. I also sometimes play mandolin in a rock band, but I don't call it folk. Not that I want to turn this into a "what is folk" thread, you understand.

That's why I have to oppose those who say we have to be good enough for them. Time will judge. They have no right to do so.

Equally, I will oppose the "prolier than thou" argument.