Wise words from Don, David.

We've had our to-ing and fro-ing in other threads about your musical philosophy. But, in all the post that you've put up in said threads, I can never recollect one where you comment on the fact that music is there to be enjoyed.

As far as I'm concerned, music flows in through the ears to the heart and, if it's the "right sort" of music - whatever that may be at the time - it strikes a chord, rings a bell, etc. (pick your own cliché...). Music is not a political or philosophical construct - it's an art form that appeals to the senses and, being so, has no boundaries - and is not subject to a cultural hegemony. If it were so, then we'd be back in Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany, or in any other period when the arts were subject to political dictatorship. I can listen with equal enthusiasm to the Dransfield brothers singing "The Rout Of The Blues" and to the Reverend Horton Heat belting out "It goes real fast and it feels real good" in true psychobilly style. And why not?

Tell me: supposing that your vision of England came true, and all schools taught just "English" music on "English" instruments, and that all folk clubs allowed only "English" stuff to be performed in them - how would that make England better? (and what's "English", by the way?). How would that improve the mood of the nation? What's inherently "better" about that state of affairs? Why is it better for me, for example, that I should only listen to the music of English composers when I'm moved beyond measure by Janacek's string quartets, or Japanese koto music?

If you can answer those questions logically, with reason and without recourse to the stuff on your website, then I'd be very interested to listen.