OK, that was a rhetorical question. You know - a palindrome.

I just scanned the whole thread, and already I forgot who it was further up that said something about the clubs being a "fashion" (my word with a shelf-life. But it got me thinking that we have two worlds mixing here: The world of folk clubs of whatever persuasion or format, a phenomenon that began in the 60s or thereabouts, with a "generational" feel about it at times, which are inevtibaly linked to the world of entertainment, professional or not; and the world of folk music, independent of clubs, with its afficionados and supporters for its own sake, independently of the world of entertainment.

There is of course overlap. Myself, I first joined a club and as a result got interested in folk music and tried to find out a few more things about it. I would not call myself an "afficionado", as the word implies more knowledge than I believe I have, but rather an "enthusiastic follower". Countess, from things you said above I believe the process was more the other way round for you - the music was always there, clubs came later. People like that may well be in a minority to be treasured (quick, get the glass cabinet and the lock - no, we don't need the key! - joke), as the natural passing-down of music and traditions seems to become rarer by the year in this crazy world.

Perhaps the clubs are like the appendix and will eventually become extinct. Or they will mutate, out of a need to have entertainment of one sort or another. And in doing so they may well move further away from folk. My point being that collapse of the clubs (if it happens) does not equal collapse of folk music; and conversely, survival of the clubs, especially if they have to mutate, would not necessarily mean survival of folk music. Yet we have been discussing them here as if the two are forever linked. This is not so, I argue.