""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.""

AT LAST! Thank God for somebody who can understand that evenings with some non traditional music may be a means to the end we all desire. Next step is to achieve a measure of respect for what I (for lack of any better description), call "contemporary folk", which, for me covers writings "in the folk idiom", as well as "revival folk".

Now, I hope that some at least will understand that I do not count these as "traditional folk". However, I do sincerely believe that the appellation "folk" is not inappropriate, notwithstanding the 1954 definition, which was introduced before either of these forms existed.

Finally, for those who believe that I am part of the problem, rather than part of the solution, I would strongly suggest that you consider the following:-

If you visit an evening with a mixture of traditional folk and other music, and walk out in disgust, you are in fact negating any good effect I might be having. I bring in ten new potential devotees of traditional music, and you remove the very thing I am trying to showcase to them.

Who, in that case, is the problem?

To rebuild takes time, and that time is considerably extended if there is somebody standing by, removing bricks as fast as they are laid.

Don T.