I have to say that it's difficult to disagree with the fundamentals of Ms Easby's proposition.

In the music halls, if someone was good they got applauded, if they were bad they got boo'd or pelted with rotten fruit. I've no doubt that this helped to raise the general standards of performance.

In many areas of the folk world we are all expected to listen, endure and then applaud some of the most appalling performances simply because 'they're doing their best'.

This does not help to spread our genre to a wider audience who can't believe some of the stuff that is heard daily in clubs up and down the country.

I've taken 'outsiders' to a folk club and watched the look on their faces as they've asked 'Do you come along every week to listen to this?'.
I sort of apologise and say 'Well, hang on, the next performer is really good, and you have to sit through some of the worst in order to hear some of the best.'

But is that how it should be?

Yes, encourage, support and help newcomers. But people should practice in private, and when they come to perform in public, thy are entitled to honest feedback.

There are different levels of ability in everything, and not everyone can the world's number one. But it should never be a case of 'Oh well, it's good enough....