Looks like many responders point out that the folk community is not big enough to have enough power to keep good folk programming going as much as it should.

Yes there are exceptions thanks for pointing them out, however, the consensus is that folk programming is under considerable pressure to go away.

Replacing radio with internet is a great option but it is more a parallel universe rather than actual radio which is more reflective of larger groups, nations, regions, states......

Perhaps my argument is that we need to use all modes and dimensions of broadcasting to keep the folk world as strong as it can be and primarily to increase the transmission of the music to others (that is to say when people hear songs they are more likely to learn and play them) and increase the popularity of the music (increase the audience, cd sales, potential for funding of education))

Many argue in favor of a sleepy small, introspective narrowly defined folk culture. Most likely nothing wrong with it. But will the culture so defined keep itself alive? Is this strategy not dropping the ball -giving up on our obligation to pass the legacy of the music and the cultures to future generations?

Adequate broadcast folk programming is IMHO essential.

I don't think that badgering governments and agencies is the way. If they can demonstrate that programs do not serve large enough audiences it is most likely their obligation to cut them. I see their point. Just so that point is honest and based upon real stats.

It is much more important to talk with performers, festival organizers, venue owners, and the audiences to get them to be as accessible as possible, to drive up the population of folk music lovers to the point that governments and corporations and agencies must take notice.

One can not over emphasize the importance of making folk music accessible at all levels, accessible to the max. Second it should do everything to get rid of aspects that make it appear to be narrow. Dump the stereotypes. What are these? I would suggest a move from ultra liberal politics to no political view. I would suggest getting rid of constant incorporation of other political issues- not that there aren't valid political issues out there but that linking folk anything to political anything automatically chops off part of the potential audiences.

If the folk community is to grow as it has to grow it needs to be appealing to absolutely everyone. No matter how much money a person has they need always to get in the door.

I always use the analogy of Daniel O'connel the Great Emancipator the great Dan of Irish Catholic politics.

When he arrived on the political scene the catholic political party was content to exclude most catholics by institution of high membership dues. O'connel realized that the problem was limiting accessibility. He moved to lower membership fees drastically and soon was talking to Monster Meetings, threatening the English government, and having himself a catholic elected to and seated in parliament.
(for which god rewarded him with a death via infected hemeroids! but I digress)

So that is why the price of a pint at a folk venue matters, that is why festival admission costs need to come down, that is why we need to maximize the number of sessions in relation to performances.

Lots of people are on the right path now. But given the fragile nature of folk broadcasting on mainstream conventional channels it appears we need more people on the right path and get more on the right path more often.

But that's just me- what do you think>

Conrad