Please can we have less insults flying to and fro? They're an infuriating distraction for those of us who would like to follow the serious discussion. And those indulging in them might bear in mind that challenging one's opponent's credibility (rather than only challenging their opinions) tends to reduce one's own credibility.

Returning to the serious discussion:
TheSnail said
> I, like Ewan MacColl, believe that anyone who wants to sing wants to sing well.

Pip Radish has already challenged that, and so do I. Many of us want to sing well, but some of us may not be as good as we think we are and some give every sign of not caring at all. The deplorable cliché "Good enough for folk" is still to be heard from time to time. Out-of-tune instruments are to be heard all too often.

I'm with Jim and Crow Sister in preferring the old stuff, by and large, and wishing that we could all agree about what name to call it by that will distinguish it from other kinds. That doesn't mean that we're trying to "control what people are allowed to enjoy". Why should we want to do that? How could we, even if we did want to?

We would like to introduce new people to the stuff that we like, on the reasonable assumption that some of them will also come to like it. Don's "what we are doing is giving present day audiences enough of what they want to get their bums on seats, and then including as much of what we, and you, want as they will accept, and pay to hear" seems a reasonable approach to that, provided nobody is misled about what's what.

Richard