JohnP raised an excellent point when he asked 'Why should innovation be considered a necessary ingredient to a good performance of traditional folk music?' The answer is very simple. Innovation and quality are entirely different things. Taking it a bit further, the age of the performer is irrelevent to either.

Surely the key is honesty. Whether pushing bounderies, or retreading old ground, if it feels right, then the music has it's own freshness. Lack of imagination can be seen at any age. Just as pushing the bounderies for it's own sake is pretentious, regardless of age.

Some here have seen this editorial for what it is, others have missed the point. It has nothing to do with a musician of one generation criticing those of the next generation, of being stuck in a golden age. For Ian Anderson there never was a golden age, he has always criticed what is going on at that time. Whether older, younger, or his own age, everybody should be doing it differently. He's always been that way, and probibly always will be. If he's always been so disaffected by the folk scene, why does he bother with it? It gives him something to say, and gets the rest of us talking about him and his mag, of course. He wins again. Like him or not, you have to have a certain respect for him.

Brian