I feel like you guys are drifting a bit towards overall or general assessments of Hugill and Lloyd. Both have positives and negatives -- and good reasons for any shortcomings. It gets muddled, in my opinion, when we judge them by different standards in order to give more or less emphasis to positives or negatives.

I am trying to stick to the specifics (though not always succeeding). My allegation of bullshit and hypocrisy doesn't apply to Hugill overall. It's just directed at his specific words in the 'Bert' biography.

I think these words need critique because they can easily be taken for granted. Hugill enjoyed the position of being able to cast doubt on the authenticity or quality of any Revival singer's performance. I think most people would read this passage at face value, as something that confirmed their understanding that Stan was The Man and that Lloyd, naturally, could not measure up fully. While we can't "blame" any one for speaking off the cuff, in this case Hugill's off the cuff statement (if that's what it was) creates a picture of Lloyd and MacColl that I think is unjustified and yet will be believed by most readers.

While Hugill and Lloyd were very different in important ways, in this case, Lloyd either didn't do some of what Hugill exaggeratingly claims or else what he did was no different than what Hugill himself had done. I object to the way that what amounts to a statement of Hugill's personal preferences or tastes as a performer seem to be made superior under the guise of authenticity. If there were circumstantial reasons for Hugill's shortcomings, then there were circumstantial shortcomings for Lloyd's, too. In all, I wish both these fellows had just said "I don't know", "I'm not sure", and "My opinion is" more often!