OK, perhaps the series was too short, to Anglo-centric, it missed obvious major contributors to the folk movement like xxxxxxx (insert your preference here) etc etc.

I am nevertheless grateful for this pittance. After all, it's more than we had last year in terms of a review of history of British folk. And in my case, despite the shortcomings of the third installment (I agree with many of the points made above), it managed after a fashion to fill the gap left from my 20 years absence from the scene (1979-1999). Well, perhaps not so much "fill the gap" as "tie some loose ends". In particular, the links between folk and punk had been a mystery to me.

In this context, Billy Bragg's statement early on was very poignant for me. I mean the bit about "punk destroying the past because they wanted to start from a zero base, but folk being so resilient that it started to pop up through the rubble" (my words).

Yes, I noted Jim's comment about Martin, but I took it to be a little tongue-in-cheek, and not aimed so much at Martin himself, but rather at those who are "more royal than the king" in such matters.

Jim's comment about the new rejuvenated scene happening under the radar of many of the old folkies also rings true, and it worries me. First, as a club organiser: You see, even the most "liberal" and "openminded" of our clubs which are keen to "open their doors to the newcomers", they tend to do so with an attitude of magnanimity - when it is they (the clubs themselves) that should be seeking recognition from the newcomers. I will be thinking hard about this in the coming weeks.

Jim's comment also worried me on a personal level - those who know my cirumstances will understand. I may need to refocus. It's hard to be a new kid on the block when you're not a kid, after all. Or, to parody the old song:

"Nobody loves a folkie when he's fifty..."

But thanks for the vote of confidence, Giok!