Bounty Hound, I disagree - I think Smoothops' justification is a valid argument. You may disagree with it, you may put forward equally valid counter-arguments (as you have), perhaps better ones, but that doesn't make it any less valid. My point is that their position is not in itself unreasonable.

I hadn't checked the number of folk agents, so there may well be more than I'd realised. However my point stands - when you look at Alan Bearman's client list, it's unsurprising that a good number of them are in the running.

I doubt the general public gives a second thought to who is judging whom. And with the exception of some the lifetime awards which have clearly been made for PR purposes, is it true that the nominations are not representative?

Awards are good publicity and a huge confidence boost to performers and I don't begrudge them (perhaps I'm biased as my good friends Pilgrims' Way are up for an award this year). The nominees will get festival bookings anyway because they're good, not necessarily because they've won awards. Festival programmes are full of names who haven't won awards so you can hardly say they're preventing others from getting work.

I agree the final statement is surprising, however that's because of the nature of the folk world where so many people perform at one level or another. Perhaps what they mean is that none of the panel are primarily performers - Ian Anderson for example (assuming he is one) would be there because he is editor of fRoots, not because he is a performer.