I've just got round to listening to the finalists, and to reading to the end of this thread.

I listened with an open mind, but my reaction to the winning duo was a bewildered, "Why are they in this competition? That's not folk."

This is no slur on their abilities as song-writers or performers - all the finalists were of a very high standard - but it seems to me that the choice of a winner was unfair on the other entrants, who, by and large, presented material which had some links with tradition and their roots. The winning song was not a folk performance in the sense that most people in the UK understand the term (and the list quoted by Tom Bliss above relates to the US folk scene). It had little to do with the "roots" (to quote another word from the competition title) of the performers. Only the third word, "acoustic" could be applied to it, and this (see other thread somewhere) is the vaguest term of the lot. Many other singer-songwriters who perform songs of this kind wouldn't have considered entering for a "folk, roots and acoustic" award, as two of the three terms are irrelevant to this type of music.

I was disappointed when the BBC, some years back, changed the title from "Young Tradition" to "Young Folk" - I guessed that before long, the traditional aspects of "folk" would become marginalised, and our roots forgotten.

Yes, ideally we'd like to see two awards, say "Young Tradition" as well as "Young Singer-Songwriter" or "Young Acoustic Performer". Until this happens (and I think hell may well freeze over before it does)I'll be saddened if the likes of Jackie Oates and Maz O'Connor don't get the recognition they deserve because the BBC and the judges don't appear to value folk and traditional music.

Marje