The trouble with a lot of the arguments around folk clubs and the quality (or otherwise) of the "performances" you get in them is that the people arguing are often discussing different things.

Herga Kitty in the second post made a valuable point, in my view, when she said

"There is a difference, though, between clubs that aim to entertain with good quality performances, and where the floor singers are carefully pre-selected, and those that are intended for people who want to have a go!"

That pretty much sums up the spectrum of folk clubs as many are a bit of both having some nights devoted to participation and other nights where there are paid guests to provide entertainment.

As has often been said, music is a social activity and sessions and singarounds are part of that, providing an opportunity for people to enjoy the pleasure of making music together. They are not about entertaining an audience but about taking part. That there are sometimes those, like Nigel above who go along to listen is incidental. It's nice when they are there and I know I have had a buzz in the past when someone has come up at the end of a session and thanked us and told us they enjoyed the evening. But that is still not the main point it is more about sharing a mutual interest.

In such circumstances the whole notion of "Good enough for folk" is a nonsense. Anyone willing to take part is good enough. This is particularly true of singing because singing is something all but a tiny minority can do naturally. It is a little different with instruments, because you do have to achieve a certain minimum standard to be able to participate, but the whole point of a good session is that the participants themselves judge when they have reached that standard. It is essentially self policing.

By the way, Nigel, why not have a go at your local singaround. You may surprise yourself and find that you can sing and I am sure the regulars will be very encouraging and supportive of your efforts!

Geoff