There's a lot of discussion going on in several threads about standards, and whether we should have them, or whether anyone should be allowed to sing regardless. But what do we mean by this? How do we judge what is good or bad? Of course, I'd prefer to listen to singers with fabulous voices, great technique and superb instrumental skills. But given that not everyone can attain the highest levels, what should we look for?

For me, the important thing is honesty. That means making the effort to understand the song and get inside it, to find the emotional connection with it. It means making the effort to learn it, and to realise that the point of a folk song is to get the song across, not show off your own virtuosity.

I'd rather someone forgot the words occasionally but communicated the real meaning of the song, rather than merely reading the words off a crib sheet as if they were reciting a shopping list.

I'd rather someone played a simple accompaniment that they can manage comfortably, rather than attempt something flashy which they cannot play without distracting themselves from delivering the song.

I'd even rather listen to someone whose voice is perhaps not the sweetest, or who perhaps is not always quite in tune, but who gets inside the song, rather than someone with perfect technique who has no understanding of or connection with the song.

This is why some of the best singers don't always have great voices and aren't always virtuoso instrumentalists. What they have is the ability to connect with the song and with the audience.

What do you think?