In the folk world there are many different groups- markets you might say from the business point of view.

-Ordinary folk who just play music, compose music, dont necessairly go anywhere special to do it.

-Audience interested in music will buy cds attend events but middle to lower class in income. perhaps your typical festival gower and occasional concert goer

-Premium audiences those who can afford almost any ticket price and go to concerts frequently, maybe fly to attend conventions.

-Audiences who like the music but are not able to spend money on it maybe play it

Ok just a few points on the spectrum.

Talking with folkies here it seems that many seem to think that each group needs "separate but equal" treatment. That is that there is nothing wrong with supporting and enabling high priced venues with higher than retail costs for food and drink because it serves a specific segment of the population who can afford to be there. Others who can not attend are not a concern....


Others can make do with free concerts given from time to time or the slightly less expensive festivals.

Maybe some can just buy cds and listen to the radio.

Most of the people are probably not in the higher income upper class afford almost anything category.

Is it right for folkies musicians and organizers to pursue strategies built upon the inherent equality of separate groups that they manage as such?

Such strategies may derive from the existence of the groups but don't they also maintain these differences?

Couldn't we do with a little less planning for "separate but equal" and more planning for broadening the market by increassing accessibility by managing costs more creativly?

Resting content with economic segregation may reflect the market but is that the sort of market we need to perpetuate?

Doesent the perpetuation of a system whereby so many are locked out eventully limit our financial success in business, by excluding volume, and our mission to maintain and extend the music?

Conrad