Anahata wrote 'Anyway it boils down to Ian A. covering what he knows about and (as somebody said earlier) what he likes.'

Hmm, I'd agree with this to a certain extent, but Ian himself would be the first to admit that he relies hugely on the legion of fRoots contributors to suggest ideas for coverage (and he also possesses an almost unreal depth of memory in relation to subjects previously covered by the magazine). In terms of Irish music articles, all my suggestions have been accepted unless the subject has previously been included and Ian would be the first to admit that Ireland is not near the top of his personal knowledge list.

Captain Birdseye wrote 'F roots,gives the impression it covers folk and roots music ,that is partially true,but what really happens[IMO] is that only those acts that Ian Anderson deems worthy of promotion,get written about.'

This is so utterly untrue regarding Ireland as to be laughable and [IMO] generally inaccurate about the magazine's overall content.

The good Captain also wrote 'What I dislike about many magazines[and here I include Folk Roots or whatever it calls itself these days]is there imagined self importance, there biased reviewing,there attempts to control the folk scene and/ or to mould it in their perceived image,and their lack of encouragement to musicians who do not fit into their perceived formula of what they should promote.'

Apart from the obvious fact that Cpt. Birdseye hasn't read a recent copy of fRoots, he is clearly labouring under a massive set of preconceptions which, in this case, just don't fit the bill at all. Nobody at fRoots has any intention to produce some kind of vade mecum or deliberate set of guidelines regarding its purchasers' listening and gigging habits. The music press in general can only make suggestions and recommendations, not set down guidelines delineated by stone walkways. Sure, all magazines by their commercial nature are always looking to tap the mother lode or identify the next 'big thing', if only to generate advertising revenue to keep the magazines going, but that doesn't mean that the editorial content is umbilically connected to said ads (unlike a certain Irish magazine I might mention) nor that their readership is regarded as being equivalent to Pavlov's dogs.

As for 'biased reviewing' in fRoots, there is no editorial dictat whatsoever given to the magazine's reviewers about what should be favourably reviewed or otherwise [there are guidelines regarding how much should be written, but that's a different matter]. If I think something's a heap of detritus or the best album since whatever, I can write such without any fear that my contribution will be amended except to correct grammatical or factual errors. Personally, I have no axes to grind so any suggestion that my reviews are somehow 'biased' would be off the wall.