I think there is one problem with the written and the spoken word, but especially the written: what a person says may be misinterpreted by others. This is the case, especially with writing, I think, as there is no tone of voice and no body language as a context in which to judge the meaning. And, in conversation, it is easy, in the flow of conversation, to discount something someone said as badly expressed or mis-spoken, if it doesn't match the rest of the flow of meanings. In writing, and especially on Mudcat, I find, people can easily pick you up on a few words, interpreted other than they were meant.

By my title, "Davey Graham: what a waste", I intended to convey the idea that I went to see a unique and profoundly talented and influential man; but what I saw was a man incapable of real performance who made the audience feel sad, embarrassed and uncomfortable. That, I think, is a waste. It is no comment at all on his hugely successful past career or his undoubted legacy: it is simply meant to convey the sadness and anger I felt that night that someone - either he or his manager - saw fit to put him, in that state, on a stage for all to see. No one can enjoy that. For the sake of the man himself (as I have said above), no one wants to see that.

This is going to be my last post on this thread as I think it has more than served its purpose. I never imagined it would get this reaction or this many posts. People will have to make their own minds up where they stand. They should do so having actually seen him play as he now plays. There are enough testaments on this thread to give an indication of what that might be like. I find it hard to understand why some accuse others of paying money to go to a gig to NOT enjoy themselves. To me, that is just a bizarre accusation. And I notice that those who defend this tragic situation of Davy being on a stage and unable to play well have singularly failed to address this very fact.

Maybe, having spent a lot of time trying to get Davy to perform again, Mark Pavey is blinded by his love for the man and his music (if that is his motive). But that is no reason to ignore the facts and then tell lies on this thread. Unable to face reality, he is making up his own.

It was me who said I thought Davy was drunk. Let me explain. I saw him behaving as if he was drunk (as described in my original post) and began to smell alcohol. Now it is perfectly possible, I suppose, that I smelt alcohol from another source close to me and, because DG was behaving in a drunken fashion, associated the two. My two friends, sat next to me at the gig, also thought he was drunk, as did the ushers and other audience members I spoke to. If he was not (and maybe only he knows that), then it raises a fundamental question: if someone is on stage and, for whatever reason, gives the impression of being too inebriated to play, should he be on that stage?

Wesley S, I thank you for your measured and wise post: "No one here hates Davy Graham or wants to pull him down. I've seen no joy expressed about his condition or his performances. But for the folks who are unhappy with this thread - what do you suggest? Ignore the situation? Hope it goes away? If we don't talk about it - it never happened?"

Thank you, good night, and peace to all - especially to Davy Graham.