I had a revelation (for me, anyway) about the movie, which I love. It's not about "folk music" at all, it's about the folk music business. It's a concert to celebrate a promoter/manager, put on by three people whose wealth came from a father who latched on to some musicians and parlayed his percentage into an inheritance; one of the kids never even liked the music, not that that seems to matter.

The acts that were portrayed are the kind of acts that got into the business to cash in. The New Main Street Singers only have one original member, who (if I remember correctly) didn't even have a microphone during their performance. It's the de-evolution of the "neuftet" from the group that accomplished the sound that he had in his head, to an amusement park re-creation.

It's hard to complain about Mickey cashing in, when the whole thing is about cashing in. Even the big moment, by the act with the most real artistic credibility, is not about the song (Kiss at the End of the Rainbow) as much as it is about the schtick that went along with the song.

The Kingston Trio got slammed for making a lot of money out of their version of folk music, but the market came to them as much as anything. They never claimed to be folk singers; they were admittedly entertainers first. This movie is about the people who saw the market open up and jumped in. There's nothing wrong with that. I started out by doing my best imitation of those guys myself. It was only much later that I started getting hungry to find out about the real guys, who made the real music. That's the topic of another movie.

Does this make sense to anyone? Or is it just me?

Have great days
Bart