Are people who cannot remember songs to be debarred from singing in public.

The answer to that is, of course, "no" - BUT, it highlights an aspect of the everlasting words/no words debate which never seems to get a lot of prominence: the audience's point of view.

Many comments on these threads are very much from the singer's point of view - me, me, me, etc. But we don't sing in isolation, except in the bath perhaps, and if we do sing in public, we do it with the expectation that someone will be listening (else why do it?).

Surely, as a singer - no matter what the social environment is - one gives some thought as to how one's singing will be received. Is it pleasurable? Is it interesting? Is it worthy of the listening group? If not, why do it?

The problem is that many kinds of activities carried on within social groupings do require some level of practice to be worthwhile and often to fit in with the group aspirations. You wouldn't join a cricket club and expect to be picked for the team if you couldn't play and/or didn't practice. As a teeneger I was a member of a tennis club. I didn't take it seriously and very soon discovered that other players didn't want me as an opponent or as a partner. I left the club and took up guitar!

The folk scene sometimes appears to be one where anyone can do anything without even trying - and where people have an expectation that they can do just what they want - even see it as a right. I try and avoid places where this view is prevalent, and go to places where I can hear a reasonable standard of tunes and songs. And I don't mind if people bugger it all up at these places, because I know they've tried - and because they're as conscious of their audience as they are of themselves.