Funny, this subject. In another thread here (Frank Harte and Donal Lunny), where someone mentioned that Frank Harte's liner notes have been criticized by a music journalist for historical inaccurcies, the response from one or two folks was something along the lines of "Who cares? Frank Harte rocks. How dare anyone criticize him!"

I think those responses are fairly common from people who really don't have high standards, and think coming from an ethical perspective about the writing is ludicrous. Which seems to be most folk music consumers.

There was a fairly substantial flame war over this very subject sometime in the last year over in rec.music.folk.

Someone pointed out a mistake in a Rootsworld review, and people started flaming away at the person who dared mention it, and then had the audacity to go on ranting about the state of folk music journalism.

So don't worry Rick, I don't think you are a lone voice in the wind. But sadly, I don't think there is much of a chorus backing you up, either.

Agree with Dick...music journalists tend to be much more accurate than folk musicians, which is an even more frightening thought.

I agree too with Bryan--there are a lot of people singing the praises of the DT to an uniformed media and public. It is a really inaccurate database (he says stepping into the asbestos suit), and no, I don't think there is any reasonable or unreasonable excuse for the shoddy way the DT site isn't maintained properly in terms of accuracy.

And finally, I certainly agree with the assessment of fRoots and Ian Anderson being expressed here. AliUK--if you think his megalomania is bad on the pages of the mag, you should see him in the Usenet newsgroups. They treat him like God the Almighty and regularly tolerate/exonerate his excesses in uk.music.folk. It is pretty sickening, actually.

Good thread here, Mr. Fielding sir.