Increasingly, I read Ian Fyvie's posts, and others like them, with a sinking heart.

There is certainly a need for us to champion the role and value of amateur singers, writers and musicians, but I fail to see why this should also require collateral attacks on those who do it for a living, whether partly or fully.

The truth is that the middle rank of 'working' artists in UK are in trouble. And the chief cause is that this philosophy, which seeks to sideline and even dismiss the input of touring artists, is in the ascendant, at the expense of the 'guest' ethos. It would take far more words that I have space for here to explain why - but, conveniently, the issue of Living Tradition which comes out today does have space, and does in fact contain my argument.

Frankly, you'd have to be one mandolin short of an orchestra not to recognise that there are plenty of brilliant amateur contributors to be found in this land, and that, yes, many are indeed much more talented than some guest artists.

But therefore to set the former above the latter, as Ian and others seem to have some need to do, is to miss some really important points.

Firstly, being a guest artist is not only about playing or singing or writing ability. It's about being able to hold an audience for a whole evening. That means having a big repertoire, and flexibility to tailor your set to the mood of the event. It means being able to deliver a high standard reliably, even in difficult circumstances such as illness or an unhelpful environment. It means being able to communicate in other ways than pure performance, and to own key skills such as sales, promotion, research, media presence, teaching and many other things which the brilliant amateur may, repeat; may, not be so good at.

Now, Ian will probable counter that he knows all this, but none of it means that we need guest artists in the first place.

Well, I would like him to just stop for one moment and ask himself where all these talented non-guests found their music. The days when a majority learned their songs, singing and songwriting from their local elders is long gone.

The vast majority of the people I encounter on my travels happily admit the influence of 'pro' performers, or some other aspect of the 'folk music business.' It may go as far back as Simon and Garfunkle and the 60s stars, or it may be the influence of people they've seen at festivals (possibly at workshops), or maybe it's song collections like Voice of The People - which, again, is a commercially produced product.

If you take all this away, you'll soon confine the 'grass roots' of folk music to an even more isolated ghetto, which without the refreshing wash of new good artists like a tide across the sand will soon become dry and brackish.

And the second key point is that it is the pros and more effective semi-pros who take folk music out of the established folk scene to new places like village halls, arts centres, theatres and other sundry venues, talk about our musical heritage, tell people about folk clubs, and generally promote folk to new ears.

And only the more established and successful artists will be able to make records that will go out to pastures new - through sales and airplay. And only they will get covered in newspapers and tv programmes and other outlets.

The folk scene went into a little torpor back there, and took its eye off the ball. Now it NEEDS the 'business' end - and that's a spectrum, right through from the purely amateur, through people like me (who plough a lone and difficult furrow) to the small group of 'successful' acts who manage to pay the mortgage.

So PLEASE can we have less of this continuous insidious suggestion that all guest artists are making a mint out of folk music, and that commercialism is raping the tradition?

Last night there was a good turn-out of West Yorkshire guests at Jon Boden and the Remnant Kings gig in Leeds (plus Damien Barber and Mike Wilson, and John Smith - in a rock venue). The talk was of how hard that man (and his band) works, and how gruelling life is even for the tiny minority who have reached a point where they can afford some professional help. Almost no-one is making a good living - trust me.

Yes, a few agents may take advantage every now and then, but all the folk biz people I know, including agents, record company bosses, magazine editors and the rest, earn - like us musicians - a salary that's a small fraction of those enjoyed by most amateur folk enthusiasts.

So. Where does this fit with the tread title?

Well it's common sense to say that of course there's a place for singers to get in free if that's what the group agree.

But to take that one stage further and imply some sort of moral high ground for so doing is wrong.

It's important to recognise the value of things, not the price. 'Free' doesn't necessarily mean 'better.'

By all means avoid concerts if you don't like them and don't want to pay. But don't suggest
that folk music doesn't need them.

The mouth-to-ear process has been swamped by 20th century, and can no longer keep the tradition alive on its own.

The working artist has an important role to play today - as indeed he always did.

Tom