"Diane if this were true then all the cash that gets poured into other minority arts like opera, wouldn't happen.
There are probably a lot more people watch, listen to, take part in, folk music than in opera. Why then do we not attract those vast sums of money? Perhaps we're not elitist enough, nor yet with influential friends in high places. As a person who has run clubs, and put his hand in his pocket to subsidise them too when needed, I can tell you it's done for love and not for snobbist reasons."

This is why I responded to Diane with my earlier comment about the commodification of the arts, G. If you look at her response I think you'll aghree she was ever-so-slightly playing devil's advocate.

When I taught Arts Management, the subsidy recived by "high art" forms like opera, compared to that received by the majority of other artforms in the UK, was always the topic of heated debate. Yes, there is definitely an element of elitism, in my opinion. And folk has an altogether different case to argue than many other artforms in justifying higher subsidy: it is, after all, an integral part of the country's heritage, and one to which everyone should have access, because it belongs to them.

In Scotland, folk arts receive higher subsidies than in England. And in Ireland, of course, there is a relatively huge amount of money that goes to support the traditional arts. There are many social and economic reasons why these things are true. And I'd go so far as to say it's been partly the wonderful community around folk, which has worked tirelessly (and without pay), and valued its independence and autonomy, which has been one of the many factors responsible. There's been a culture of self-reliance which has meant that when other artforms were going after (and achieving) subsidy, many areas of the folk arts were looking after themselves.

We're playing catch-up now. It's not easy, but we're getting there.