Journalists, even those specialising in the less fashionable areas of music, do seem to have a compulsion to invent "the future" of whatever genre they are dealing with on a regular basis. They seem unable to understand that the latest fashion is not always the issue: hence their constant harping on such questions as "how should we re-cast folk music so that it it relevant to the young generation?"

"Relevant", though it is the term that they typically use, simply displays their ignorance and their slavish devotion to buzzwords from the ad agencies. Food does not have to be "made relevant" to each successive generation in order to ensure that they will eat; though it is certainly true that the junk-food companies have a constant battle on their hands to make sure that children over a certain age become addicted -physically or culturally- to their product.

That's the point, I think; we are talking here about "product". I've heard Jim Moray, and he produces perfectly good stuff, though he hasn't mastered his singing voice yet (it's still rather weak), and his use of technology might have been new in the 1970s, but strikes me now as "retro" rather than ground-breaking. Journalists, however, will inevitably seize on such things as "the new face of" (whatever) if for no other reason than that they would always rather do that than a bit of basic research into the subject on which they like to present themselves as expert.

Moray is workmanlike and competent, so far as I can see, but nothing out of the ordinary as yet. He may well develop into far more as he matures, but probably not if lazy music journalists lionise him too early. I hope that he is too intelligent to take seriously some of the nonsense that is presently being written about him.