Thanks for that Cap'n - still not convinced anybody ever lived in Penge.
Listened to the programme (thanks a million Burton) with growing fascination last night - nice to hear some of the old voices.
Major problem was, as I expected, not near enough time to cover the great area of work done by the group - just as there's not enough time here to cover all of the misrepresentation (I'm convinced they were not deliberate).
The main point for me was the position MacColl was shown as holding in the group.
He set it up in the first place, so it was, in essence 'his' brainchild - this was a fact nobody ever disputed in my hearing.
MacColl did not, as was stated, "lead off with the criticism following a performance" - both Pat and I shouted "bollocks" simultaneously when it was suggested he did.
MacColl was chairman - after a performance, he always asked for "comments" it was routine - almost part of the script; the first question always being "did the singing move you". The only thing 'demanded' of these comments was that they were "balanced", outlining both the strengths and weaknesses of the performance
These would (usually) come from everybody in the room - if anybody showed reticence in giving an opinion MacColl would ask for one - he never, in my presence nor on any of the tapes I have listened to, insisted on one, but would accept "I have nothing to add to what's already been said" or some such.
He would then sum up what had been suggested and add his own opinion, agreeing or disagreeing with what had been said and saying why.
He would then ask for suggestions as to which aspects of singing should be concentrated on, again adding his own suggestions, and we would embark on usually an hour+'s intense working session, making sure not to give the singer more than they could cope with in terms of work.
When we'd finished, the singer was usually asked if there were any questions on what had been arrived at and would be asked to come back at a later date with any results of work, or any continuing difficulties - three or four weeks later usually, if time permitted.
I was present at the session where MacColl 'demanded' that all members take part in the discussion; without checking the recording, I'm pretty certain that it was my first working performance in front of the group meeting (you never forget that sort of thing).
The sessions were organised in such a way that no one individual dominated the criticism; that everybody had a part in the proceedings. As sometimes happened (again, from the recordings), the number of people participating had dwindled to the same handful. MacColl felt that this was detrimental to the way the group operated and, as was his wont - said so, in this case, rather forcibly.
If this appears bullying, sorry - I never felt it was - but there you go.
A full description of the critical work the group did can be found in the full version of the 'Journeyman' extract I posted earlier.
If everbody isn't bored out of their skulls by all this, I'll be happy to cover some of the other reservations of the programme I have later.
Jim Carroll