And where do you draw the line? When you say "degenerated into a chat group" is it the Song Challenges that discourage you? The Mudcat Taverns? The function threads? The discussion of the 9-11 catastrophe and its ramifications? Obviously you seem to have an ideal in mind whihc constrains people in their communicating to some point in the spectrum from the purely technical aspects of music to the historical, the wider contexts of hsitory and meaning of song, and the creation of new songs, new performances, and on into less and less directly related things -- such as sharing feelings and thoughts, as Carol points out. I'd really like to know.

Whenever someone starts sniping about the "degeneration" of Mudcat into more and more "social" kinds of conversation less anchored to music -- including Song Challeneges and fiction threads -- I get both guilty and irritated. I get guilty because I probably post five times to social or humorous threads for each time I find I can contribute to some purely musical one. But I have always found myself welcome to do so. I get irritated because of the degree I treasure the dialogs and exchanges of information -- for example, the discussions about physics with Bruce O -- as well as the interchanges of creativity, humopr and affection which usually characterize this forum. The irritation comes from thinking that someone might feel that it was "improper" for me to enjoy these friends so much or to threaten the nevironment in which it is possible.

As far as "relevance to blues" and "relevance to folk music", I think there are two ways to interpret that notion. One is relevance to form. This would limit the site to studies of preexisting music, maybe occasional new candidates carefuly screened, emphasis on technique and technical aspects of music, song history and related things. It is clear these are the core that makes the Mudcat what it is in a purely quantifiable sense.

But the other side of that equation is that the reason many of us are folk musicians is out of a deep resonance with what i can only call the spirit of blues and folk music. This spirit is what makes Mudcat feel the way it does,as far as I am concerned -- a happy irreverence, a ready sense of humor, a strong historical perspective informed by the incredible range of past poetry contained in our folk and blues legacy, and a feeling for the long truths that emerge from that legacy over centuries rather than merely weeks.

What would the benefit be of curtailing that spirit for the sake of academic focus? I just don't see it. ESPECIALLY since participation in any one of the many dialogues going on here is completely optional, which leaves you not only in the position of saying that you don't want that kind of thing in your life, you don't want anyone else to have it either!!

That strikes me as an extreme stance to adopt just for the sake of Mudcat "purity". Another question. Assume that those who enjoy a more generalized broad-spectrum approach to things are a bit put off by the academically pure threads -- perhaps they get impatient with efforts to untangle whether "Waly, Waly" first surfaced in the first or second decade of the eighteenth century, either in Scotland or Northumbria, no-one is quite sure, because...

Yet no-one complains that this purist focus dampens the spirit of folk music as it is lived at the 'Cat. They are tolerant enough to ignore the threads that annoy them, read those they love, and get on with life.

Please be assured I in no way intend this as an ad hominem argument. Life is too short! :>)

One final thought. I suspect when you bemoan the passing of the "real" Mudcat of the past that what you are msising is a particular dialogue -- or a particular person. Now that I can understand -- not having someone to talk to with whom you really enjoyed talking is enough to make ya bitter.

But if that is the case, don't spread it over the whole site. If you get the right cause behind the sadness identified, you might even be able to do something about it that would remedy it!!

With best regards,

A