Having started this - thanks for interesting views. And I don't think it matters a hoot that we can't define what "our" music is . . However my experience across many years is that there are many people who never get to hear "our" music - because it is outside the mainstream. And that when you DO get to a new audience a not-disappointing proportion of them like what they hear and want more. What I do find unreasonable and unacceptable is that suggestions that "our" music is somehow too difficult or inaccessible for "ordinary" people. I want more people to get to hear "our" music because many of them WILL relate to it, and many of them are missing something which they would find to be wonderful. And them doing so is good for all those working in this area, and so good for those of us who already know how wonderful it it.

And FionaN I think you're wrong; it's selling pretty well in the UK at the moment. Still lots of room for improvement (taking out a contract on those responsible for CM might help further, too) but Topic wouldn't be releasing "Voice of the People" and the "Radio Ballads" if, overall, their market wasn't healthy.

And Jon F: Your suggestion that "Classical" music is better than Folk in terms of melodic structure is too broad a generalisation . . "Classical" encompasses some dross, too! But why compare on the basis of melodic structure? The finest folk revival performances can bear comparison, in terms of musicianship, with fine classical performance. I'm in favour of encouraging musical excellence in all fields; I just happen to have a PARTICULAR liking for some of what we loosly describe as "Folk".

But thanks for all the interesting comments.

G.