Faye - please go and read the BBC explanation of how the awards actually work.

Your sentence "Wouldn't that be a better situation all round; where performers are judged on talent, not on how famous they've become?" takes my breath away.

No-one is judged as you suggest. Fame and success are the twin babies of talent and hard work. If an artist is talented and works hard (and gets lucky) there is bound to be a correlation between an artist's public profile and his odds on a nomination - that's life. (And you can't do anything about the 'lucky' bit - that's life too).

Ok, folk music is not supposed to be about showbiz - but it is and always was about entertainment with a small 'e.' Cap that and you cap the urge to improve, and deny the reward of recognition. Showbiz is the natural end result of effort and talent, and it was always thus even in the days of yore. And that is right and proper.

The winners list is restricted because of cost, and because awards must be restricted by definition.

Yes, you could pick talented unknown artists from the ether and hold them up to the light for a brief moment of fame. But that would not be an efficient use of the value system of the award phenomenon to other unknowns (the awards would loose impact), and it wouldn't do all that much good to those artists careers either.

We do have such awards - the BBC Young Folk Awards for a start, and there are others, but these do not do the job of the R2 awards - which, on the whole, offer excellent value for money to the business end of folk music - (which exists because a LOT of people want it to, and we live in a democracy).

Tom