"many in community arts actually resent their work being always regarded as somehow inferior to that of professionals, and the assumption that the process is more valuable than the outcomes."

OK, much of this explains a comment from you in response to a post I made elsewhere about "less emphasis [in Mudcat] on the commercial aspect of folk and more on the amateur". By which I meant more emphasis on the value of *public education* type incentives encouraging active amateur interest in their musical heritage, in line with those our Celtic cousins are currently enjoying.

I think sometimes there can be assumptions about where another person is coming from. As you know, I've only been involved in this scene (and in a very limited fashion) for something over a year. So I don't (I hope!) come with too many entrenched assumptions. Though, I'm not lacking in personal opinion... :)

Otherwise, my personal take is that the music as it was, has (and is) being re-processed as a commercial product for a buying audience. It's a different thing than it once was. But so too, is that same music in the context of the contemporary amateur singaround with it's plethora acoustic guitars - despite the contributors aspirations to echo or emulate the past.

So, let those who have ambition to succeed in the professional arena do so, and those content to engage in the amateur human context do so likewise.

As to criticism.. I don't know. I think both are open to it, but in different ways. Though I acknowledge your complaint that "if so-and-so's kid can suddenly be a folk celebrity, well then I certainly could have been too, if I'd just tried hard enough and had the right breaks." might be a valid one.