I would agree with all that has been said. I've always been interested in history, but not the political kind; it's the REAl history that gets me; how people did things; how they dressed, how they made their furniture, what they ate, how they travelled - and why, how they worked, their love lives, and their deaths. All this is represnted in folk songs. It's real life; we know people -'ordinary' people - who lived two or three centuries ago, because their stories have come down to us. And, as others have said, the people who play folk music are generally approachable, helpful people. The ones who do it for a living are not in this for stardom; they are just 'ordinary' people too, doing this for a living instead of digging for coal or making suits or building houses. And unlike many involved in other kinds of music, they are happy to share what they know, because they are passionate about it. I love the fact that the folk world is so inclusive - the audience is as much a part of it as the singers, and the amateurs as much a part as the professionals. At least, this is how it used to be; sadly, I think things are changing in this respect. I remember Nic Jones, back in about 1979, going on for his second spot, after the floor singers, saying "the floor spots are always my favourite part of a folk club; you never know whether your next singer id going to be brilliant or bloody awful". I'm pretty sure this was Nic; my apoplogies to him and whoever it was if I've mis-attributed it. The point is that your singer might be bloody awful, but was still entitled to a hearing, and someone of Nic's stature would still listen. We were all one big, tolerant and supportive family. As I said, I think this is changing. Other threads here have included a lot of snide comments about both the professionals and the amateurs, indicating something of an estrangement which I think helps none of us. Can we mend the rift before all the things we've talked about here become merely a rosy memory?
John Kelly.