Ah, now I understand. I point out some of Jim's good qualities. That's appreciation. I point out some of his weaknesses. That's intellectual arrogance. Yes, of course, his weaknesses IN MY OPINION. All this kind of thing is subjective as is all art criticism, and I don't feel bound to keep saying 'in my opinion but of course there are other opinions and you're not bound to take my word for it' every time I want to express a view.
Why does it cause people such distress that I want to be critical? Has the Folk movement lost all critical faculties? The editor of a regional folk magazine once told me that after he'd farmed out records to be reviewed, if he got a bad review back, he would send it to someone else in the hope of getting a better one. How do we hold up our head as a musical art form if this is our attitude?
Let's be quite clear what I am saying. I do NOT, and I do not even feel like reserving the right to, come on these pages and criticise by name amateur performers. But Jim is a professional. He takes money, albeit hardly a fortune, from the movement in general, and from me personally when I buy tickets to watch him. I think, even without years of studying folk music behind me, I have the right to be critical when I believe he is making mistakes.
How do professionals improve if every comment they get is from an Appreciation Society? I'm very sorry this sounds like an attack on Jim, because the ONLY reason I have chosen to contribute to this is that I really admire so much about him that I think he is worth 'saving' (how's that for intellectual arrogance?).
Someone has asked about whether I would be critical of Vin Garbutt. No I wouldn't, because I have no time for his work at all, so I have no interest in trying to improve him. Jim however is different. And so I get railed to death…