I very much doubt the programme makers intended to make a programme about blues - if they had, it would have been very different and probably presented by someone else. Neither was it intended to introduce people to the blues. The programme was about Hugh Laurie and his enthusiam for music. Why should they make a programme like that? Because he's a well-known and well-liked actor who is able to speak interestingly and thoughtfully on the subject, and who is also an accomplished pianist (although I agree he is weaker as a singer and is a fairly indifferent guitarist).

Most people seem to assume that you can only be good at one thing. On the folk scene we are perhaps more accustomed to amateur performers attaining near-professional standards, but for many people it comes as a surprise that amateurs are capable of that. It's interesting to see someone do that and talk about it, just it's interesting and a bit unexpected to learn that Brian May of Queen is an astrophysicist or that Bruce Dickinson of Iron Maiden works as an airline pilot in his spare time. That's why Hugh Laurie gets attention for his musical activities, and that's why this TV programme was made. To judge it as a documentary about the blues is to miss the point.

The quality of his performance can quite rightly be criticised. However quite a few of the comments appear to begrudge the fact that because of his fame his musical activities have received more attention they deserve. It's true that most of us have to be satisfied with a few minutes on YouTube shot in our front rooms while he gets an hour-long prime-time TV slot and a chance to gig with some top musicians, but wouldn't you jump at that if you had the chance?