I haven't been to the National for years, but I'll get there again eventually. Too broke this year, unfortunately. The main reason the young players are technically so advanced is that they started a lot younger than we did; many encouraged almost from birth by parents who were already involved in the music in one way or another. That's not to detract from their obvious abilities, but a lot of them did have an existing, supportive context to develop in that we had to do without.

For all that, I don't think that most of them have a greater maturity in their playing than do the singers; it's more that, with instrumental music, it's easier to mistake polished technique for understanding. Some of them will do very well indeed, but I hope they'll be the ones who have the patience to learn their craft without hurrying too much.

In one respect, at least, they're at a disadvantage; although they've attained a higher degree of polish in their playing at a much earlier age than did most of the previous generation, it's also the case that, a generation ago, it was possible to define a genuinely innovative style at quite a young age (Carthy and Jones both did it); they, however, will have to live in the shadow of their predecessors. Some will get around that by going for iconoclasm, but that's a road that only exceptionally talented (or exceptionally lucky) folk can get away with (and they won't be the ones Peter Paphides came up with!)

Tonight's broadcast only confirmed for me that, although young people are producing a lot of fine music at the moment, it really isn't significantly different from what was being done when I was their age; though they are doing it with greater technical skill than we were able to.

That's as it should be, perhaps; it's a pity, though, that so many journalists and similar media pontificators insist on pretending that it's all new and cutting-edge; they are perhaps too wedded to the commercially-generated "youth culture" that dominates certain other musical genres to be able to understand that traditional music is just that; although it changes with time, those changes are always provisional until they are rejected or assimilated. Anyone who says "such-and-such is the future" or, for that matter, "such-and-such is not the future" is over-reaching themselves.

I'd like to think, though, that the future will be based on a proper understanding of the past. The mid-20th century folk revival has thrown up a lot of things that are not yet part of a definable tradition; they may become so, but impatience or a desperate search for novelty or coolness won't decide that; only time will do it.