Hello again,

Tom: Thanks for your notes. We're reluctant to tie any categories to the output of Mike's show, for a few reasons. For one, we are short of time on the show and can only play a small percentage of the tracks we think are worthy of a play. So it is possible that many great tracks or artists would not be represented. Surely it is better to have the categories totally open.

SO WHY DO YOU KEEP PLAYING THE SAME FEW PEOPLE OVER AND OVER?

Keith and others: There does tend to be a low vote for some categories during the nominations stage, but particularly Best Traditional Track and Best Original Song. Don't forget that there are no restrictions. People can vote for whatever they like and as a result around 80-100 artists/tracks/albums receive nomination votes in each category. Consequently the votes are spread and therefore appear low. Considering the vast field, I think it is a real achievement to receive enough votes to become a nominee, even if those votes might sometimes only total single figures. NO IT'S NOT, GIVEN THE MAKE UP OF THE PANEL. Here are the vote counts for the nominations round in the Best Original Song category:

Roots – Steve Knightley performed by Show of Hands (20)
Karine Polwart – Daisy (16)
Steelos – John Tams (14)
Jack Frost – Mike Waterson performed by Waterson:Carthy (10)

The White Hare received 5 nominations in this category.

40% of the panel cast votes in the nominations round for Best Original Song. 70% cast votes on the outcome of that category.

AND YOU THINK THAT'S ENOUGH VOTES TO SETTLE A CAREER-CHANGING AWARD? THERE ARE PLAINLY TOO MANY PEOPLE ON THE PANEL WHO DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT FOLK MUSIC TO BE VOTING.

With regard to the point about folk shows on BBC local radio, representatives (usually presenters) from all of the programmes you mention are on the Folk Awards panel.

BUT THEY ARE OUTNUMBERED BY PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T A CLUE.

Almunecarblade: I'm sorry, I did say I would publish the votes and I have published the ones in the categories that have attracted the most discussion. ROGER BOLTON WAS ASKING FOR ALL THE VOTES, AND YOU AGREED TO PUBLISH. We do not want to publish any more counts or percentages, particularly with regard to the other categories, as we feel it is unfair to the artists who received richly deserved nominations and awards. It is a shame we have already had to publish numbers just to prevent guesswork and speculation. We want all nominations to remain of equal value to the artists.

9 VOTES GETS A NOMINATION, 8 VOTES DOESN'T. HOW 'EQUAL VALUE' IS THAT?

Greg: We have looked at the nominations for The White Hare and found, as we have in the past, that if any votes from so-called vested interests were removed, the song would have still received its nomination. Please refer to my previous statements. There is no funny business involved.

SO YOU SAY. OTHERS DISAGREE. YOU ARE SPENDING PUBLIC MONEY - SORRY, YOUR WORD IS NOT ENOUGH.

In fact, because Seth has recently gone the route of major label, and pretty much all of our panel are folk-related people, there is only one panellist I can think of who might have a vested interest in Seth's success.

ONE IS STILL TOO MANY. AND WHAT ABOUT THE OTHERS ARTISTS?

With regard to your comment about having musicians on the panel, they do vote for the Folk Club of the Year. Other than that, we just felt it was the job of musicians to make the music, not to have to judge each others' work. If we were to invite some musicians on to the main panel, the question would be who?

HOW DID YOU DECIDE THE REST OF THE PANEL THEN?

K: Please refer to my previous statements re: vested interests on the panel. We have found that they have almost no effect on the nominations or outcome, and if they were ever seen to do so, we would consider discounting votes.

CONSIDER? IN ANY OTHER VOTING SYSTEM IT WOULD BE OUTLAWED.

There are a number of folk journalists on the panel, SOME OF THE BIGGEST UK PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT REPRESENTED - I WONDER WHY but I'm not willing to name names because as I have always said, we don't want them to be open to any kind of lobbying.

THIS INSISTENCE ON SECRECY JUST MAKES PEOPLE SUSPICIOUS. IF THE PANEL ARE PEOPLE OF INTEGRITY IT SHOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM KNOWING WHO THEY ARE. WE ALL KNOW WHO OUR MPS ARE.

In answer to comments made by several members: I'm quite happy with the category The White Hare was in, I'm happy with the definition of the traditional tag and I'm also very happy with the final result for Barleycorn (which was the song I voted for by the way).

AND WHO SAYS IT SHOULD BE UP TO ONLY YOU TO DECIDE? 99% OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED AN OPINION SAY YOU ARE WRONG. THEY ARE PAYING YOUR SALARY. THE BBC REQUIRES YOU TO BE ACCOUTABLE. IF YOU'RE BEING PIG-HEADED ABOUT THIS WHAT ELSE ARE YOU HIDING?

Thank you for all your comments and your continued interest in the Awards. Thanks especially to those who have written in support of our good intentions. (2)

I hope I have dealt with most of the points raised here. I'm afraid I can't devote any more time to discussing the issues on this thread, as other projects are taking up my time and I won't be able to give this as much attention as I'd like. However, if you still wish to share ideas with us, please contact the team through the contact form on Mike's showpage: www.bbc.co.uk/radio2...

IN OTHER WORDS, 'YOU PRATTLE ON AS LONG AS YOU LIKE. I'M NOT LISTENING.'

John