"I guess you should tell me why these things wont work. "

Okay.

"What supporting evidence do you wish to have? "

Names. You keep talking about these elitist, jet-setting, professional folk singers who collect their egregiously huge checks, then, ignoring their fans, go and sit by the swimming pool in some luxurious hotel, where they "Basque" in the sun and drink $15.00 Cuba Libres. Who are these people. Name some names. Inquiring minds would like to know.

"My generalizations seem to make perfect sense. "

Then you are the Lone Ranger. They obviously make "perfect sense" to no one but you.

"Lower costs- better access"

Quite possibly true in general, but even free events usually draw only so many people.

"smaller venues - better experience"

Then why do you want free festivals composed of thousands of people? You contradict yourself.

"cheaper beer- more can drink"

Definitely not a positive!! If there are a lot of people such as you in attendance sitting there lushing it up, with all the typical behavior that goes with a beer-bust, this would be a real turn-off to many people who would otherwise attend, but don't like being surrounded by a bunch of boisterous lager louts, and many singers draw the line at singing for drunken audiences. I, for one, am not opposed to drinking in moderation, but I really prefer to have my audiences sober enough to understand and appreciate what I am doing, which includes being informative along with being entertaining.

"performance with teaching is better than without"

Provided it is done subtly, without making it obvious that you're "educating" your audiences. Lots of people just don't like that and it will drive them away.

"anyone who knows a tune and can play it is good-= more can play"

This depends on the nature of the event. There are lots of gatherings such as the "hoots" I have described elsewhere and such things as song circles. Songs like work songs and sea chanteys work well when sung by groups of people, but when I'm listening to someone sing a ballad (a story song), I much prefer to hear it sung by one person as ballads are intended to be sung, than to listen to a whole chorus of singers, especially if half of them at bleary-eyed drunk! And not just ballads. There are a lot of songs that are intended by their very nature to be sung solo.

"when more play there is more demand for professionals to play at events if no one can play or knows the tradition they are less likely to call a pro.... "

Debatable. Most audiences are made up of people who don't play—or if they play, they don't necessarily play folk music—nor do they want to sing along. These are the people who prefer to listen to a professional: someone who has dedicated themselves to learning, practicing, and performing, not someone who sings merely as a sideline or hobby.

"sound systems are a recent intrusion into the folk world- fact didnt need them then and still don't"

Debatable. I have sung in coffeehouses and at house concerts and other small venues where a sound system was not necessary. I have also sung in an amphitheater where there were some 6,000 people assembled, and none of the singers would have been heard without the sound system. I've sung in large auditoriums with excellent acoustics where a sound system was not necessary. And I've also sung in venues with lousy acoustics where a sound system was absolutely necessary. Once again, it depends on the nature of the venue.

"Songs are preserved in several ways we are lagging behind in one of the that is keepin songs in the mind and as part of the lifeway. "

This sentence doesn't make sense. You must have left out a crucial word or two. And as far as "lifeway" is concerned, folk music is not a part of most peoples' "lifeway" and never was. Even in times past. This rural, pastoral yesteryear that you seem to be imagining never really existed to any extent. Folk music was a means whereby people entertained themselves. When media such as radio came along, it slid into obscurity and it will remain a specialization of a small percentage of people, and no amount of hard-charging promotion will change that.

The songs ARE being preserved in books, on recordings, and in the memories of those who are interested enough in this particular genre of music to perform it and keep it alive—and, by their performances, interest a few members of their audiences in learning songs and performing them as well.

You are not going to get the whole world all standing in a circle, holding hands, and singing "Kumbaya." It was tried back in the 1960s and, save for temporarily, with a very small percentage of people, it just didn't really catch on.

"Entertainment does not save songs it makes people happy for a short while. "

It DOES save songs, at least in the minds of the performers who sing them—and in the minds of those who are inspired to do likewise, as I was inspired by Walt Robertson back in the early 1950s—and in the number of people who came to me after one of my performances and asked if I teach. And I am not the only performer who gets asked this question. And who does teach.

And making people happy for a short while. You think this is a BAD thing?

"Why can't everyone volunteer? Some people do it? Why exployt them. When all volunteer the event is more accessible why not? (see barn raising, covered dish dinners, self help) "

Because not "everyone" has the time. And not "everyone" is interested. Those who do volunteer, are NOT being "exploited." If they felt like they were, they could easily "UN-volunteer." And there is already a lot of volunteering going on. As I have said several times before, the massive Northwest Folklife Festivals are free to the public, and the whole thing is run by volunteers—including the singers. So what's your problem, Conrad?

"I could go on. "

I'm sure you could. And, of course, will.

(For God knows how many posts yet, saying the whole blasted heap of nonsense over and over and over and over and over and over and over. . . .)

ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Don Firth