I had not intended to contribute to this thread, as I remarked previously on another one, because I happen to have been a critic, folk [records books concerts festivals columns interviews features obits] and theatre, for many years, for Times, Guardian, Folk Review &c &c; and so would obviously not appear objective. But there is one point whose hash needs settling by someone within the trade: and that is the idea that a critic tends to be nothing but a 'failed whatever-it-may-be' — as if one had an ill-received gig, and said to oneself, 'darn it then, if they don't like me I'll go and be a critic & that'll show 'em!'; whereupon one walks into the office of a national paper & says, 'Hi, I've come to be your folk critic'.

Believe me, it just ain't that easy to convince an Arts or Literary Editor that you are the man he wants for the job, build up connections, gain membership of NUJ or Inst of Journalists... If you don't believe me, just try setting up as a critic for a reputable journal or programme, just like that, and see where it gets you. Of course, there are blogs and chatrooms and all sorts of outlets to express one's opinions, just as there were always newsletters; but that's not quite the same, is it? Becoming an actual, recognised·in·the·fields of both press & of medium·reviewed, Critic·with·a·cap·C isn't quite as simple as that.