Sorry Al - can't go with you here. How much of what Cecil Sharp House does or doesn't do is actively a part of the mindset of all the people who run clubs, singarounds and sessions? Very little for the most part, I suspect. I've never had a yen to even go to Cecil Sharp House, much less perform there - why should I when there's so much going on in my locality? And when I was gigging in London in the '60s and '70s, the main target was to headline at somewhere like the Cousins or the Troubadour, or even Bunjies. They were the places to be - not C#H.

As for folk awards, I never bother with them and they don't impact on me one little bit. I read the odd music review in the Guardian or the Observer from time to time but, to be honest, unless you're of one mind with the reviewer, they're often a waste of space. What gets me to gigs as part of an audience is hearing records that friends recommend, hearing the buzz from people whose musical tastes I trust, and my own knowledge gleaned from all sorts of sources. To say that:

Cecil Sharp's gang of heavies are a focus for all the inequalities and injustices of the present system

is investing them with too much power and authority, IMO. They become men of straw - puppets to be put up and knocked down as the source of all problems. There are all sorts of reasons why good musicians don't get gigs - and some of them are complex and personal - but nominating a "gang of heavies" seems a slightly simplistic catch-all to me. No offence intended to you, Al, but I'm not convinced with this one.