Reading this, not only does it appear that people want different things from folk clubs, but the things they want are diametrically opposed.

For some, the strength of folk clubs is their inclusivity, that they allow everyone the opportunity to perform and be accepted. For others, it is the thought of having to sit through hours of dire floorsingers while waiting to hear the guest that puts them off.

Both points of view are right - the strength of folk clubs can at the same time be their weakness. Some clubs are fortunate enough to attract a high standard of floor singer. What the rest often lack is any form of quality control.

Folk clubs provide an opportunity for performers to hone their skills. Unfortunately, being in the audience while the honing is going on can be pretty dire. Some performers don't seem to be interested in honing their skills, and some frankly don't have any skills to hone, but that doesn't stop them from getting up every week.

I think clubs do need to decide whether they are going to be singers clubs/singarounds (and some of these can be very high standard) or concert-type clubs with guests. If you are putting on a quality guest then you owe it to them and the audience to maintain the standard throughout the evening by only putting on floorsingers who are at least competent.

This poses a number of problems - most club organisers (and performers for that matter) are doing this in their spare time, and it is not realistic to hold auditions before giving them a floor spot. Some are too nice to tell their regulars "Sorry, you're just not good enough to be given a floor spot tonight". And many will feel that this goes against the spirit and ethos of folk clubs.

And therein lies the problem. How do we reconcile the participative, supportive, involving nature of folk clubs with the need to provide commercially-viable (in the sense of at least breaking-even over the longer term) entertainment?