Terrible programme. Granted it wasn't long enough to turn round in, which makes me wonder why the producers even decided to tell such an important element of the folk revival in such a short space of time.

One consequence of this brevity was that the whole thing presumed a knowledge of the British folk revival, and Radio 4 is a general listening station. What the non-folk folks who turned it on made of it, I just shudder to wonder.

But its problems weren't just to do with space. Throughout, there seemed to be a desire to put the cart before the horse; to highlight the supposed deficiencies in MacColl's working methods (and personality flaws), and then to attribute its failure to the same.

It would have made a far better programme had the BBC placed more emphasis on the positive aspects of the Critics Group, such as the fact that it produced so many first rate singers, the fact that it resulted in some very interesting LPs, and the fact that some remarkable songs came out of the Critics Group. Remember Grey October?

I'll grant you that the recorded excerpts of the Critics Group meetings seemed to show MacColl in fine dictatorial fettle, and I remember a statement of his. It was to the effect that democracy doesn't work in the arts. According to MacColl there has to be a tyrant. And anyone who has studied the attempts of soviet orchestras in the early days of the USSR, to operate as co-operatives, might well concur.

But that leaves me with two questions. One is how selective were those extracts? If we were to listen to the entire set of recordings, or even to a substantial sampling, might we not come up with a more balanced view of MacColl's working methods, and might we not find that he was more willing to operate on a working consensus than the soundclip about writing Vietnam songs suggested?

The second question is, if it takes a tyrant, as MacColl is reputed to have claimed, where in the early 1960s would you have found anyone who was more erudite or better qualified?

Last of all, why give the job of narrator to Martin Carthy? By his own admission he was never a member of the Critics, and to my knowledge, has never done any research into the group's history. I know Carthy, albeit slightly, and I have always found him an extremely likeable and pleasant person, certainly not someone I would expect to harbour grudges going back half a century. Yet he came over as someone with a gigantic King Edward potato welded firmly to his shoulder.

I can think of one person who would have done an excellent job even with the limited time, and better still if more had been available. And that person is Sandra Kerr.

BTW., if Carthy was saying that membership of the Critics was by invitation only, then I happen to know he is wrong. No less a personage than Frankie Armstrong rang MacColl up and asked if she could join.