"Jim, once again you are shifting the goalposts."
No - I am damn well not Howeard, nor have I ever done so (nor have I ever mantioned '54)
I have always said that new songs using folk forms are not only "acceptible" in clubs but are essential if folk is going to survive - the term "new songs using folk forms
" has always summed up what I mean - I make no sopecifications on that
The term I use constantly is "homogeneity" - that, in my experience, is what audiences expect
Theres has never been any suggestion that new songs might be mistaken for folk songs (not by me anyway (even though it has occasionally been the case)
I have no objection to people earning a living from folk song but oncee that becomes a sole objective of the scene as a whole it loses its grass-roots nature
I do think those using folk song commercially might put back something into the scene, after all, anybody recording songs they make have to pay for the privilege, but that's a personal opinion
I put Dave's figure of 186 because that's what he put up as a measure of success
I have no idea whether ot not it is accurate - - little else in his Wiki entry is
I jhave no idea why Brian Peters and Marting Carthy should waste their time on "unsuitable ballads (somebody else's description - certainly not mine)
Again - in py opinion, all folk songs deserve hard work, I don't believe ballads to be any harder than many others - their quality takes any singer half-way there from the start
Now - what goalposts have I moved and where have I taken them to ?
Jim
Back later