As it came across to me, McColl's purpose was not so much "how folk songs should be sung" as "how folk songs should be approached" - getting performers to think about the song, what layers of meaning they want to emphasise, and what style to adopt to achieve that. It's something a good performer does instinctively, the rest of us have to learn it, either by absorbing it from other performers or from a more intellectual approach. Stanislavsky and Laban are just formalised analyses of what good performers do instinctively.

The instinct in the folk world seems to be to shy away from anything which smacks of theatricality, as if it is somehow inauthentic. However the best of the traditional singers and musicians were undoubtedly performers, and used many of these techniques even though they had no formal training.

I found the programme very interesting. The Critics Group had already broken up by the time I got actively involved in folk music, but its presence was still felt. However this programme is the first time I've really understood what it was about, what it was for and what it was trying to achieve.

If the Critics Group itself was ultimately a failure, some of those involved with it had a significant impact on folk for many years to follow. It's a pity we don't seem to have a similar emphasis on performance these days - the situation described at the start of the programme which led to the group being formed could apply to many clubs today.