On 22 July, 13:20, JF  wrote:
> Jacey Bedford wrote:
> >> Then you are not doing it right
>
> > <Splork!>
> > (Sound of coffee being exhaled through nose all over keyboard.)
>
> > Jacey
> > (He's got a point.)
>
> Yebbut. It's folk music -- it also belongs to those of us who do
> it simply, not just the stars who tune their guitars to strange
> effect and wouldn't dream of singing in the sort of pub where
> making them shut up and listen is about as complicated as it gets.
>
> If it's worth doing, it's worth doing badly.
>
That depends on why you're doing it badly. I don't mind if that's
really the best you can do, but one of my pet hates is the floor-
singer or session-singer who will half-heartedly plod through
something with no effort to do their best but rather that than miss
their turn. They do exist, I'm sure of it.

There was an article some time ago in the Living Tradition magazine
that seemed to suggest that folk music wasn't good enough for Radio 3.
One of my comebacks to that was to suggest that it takes a great deal
more (ability/effort/imagination/passion/whatever you will) to get the
most out of something when you only have a solo voice to do it with -
and especially when that voice is not trained to strangulation point
by some classically-trained tutor. I have heard some memorably moving
performances by singers who struggle to hold a tune, yet I am totally
unmoved by the latest child-star Farrell that Classic FM are pushing
for all they're worth.

But in the end, regardless of how well you can do it, if your heart's
not in it, it's not worth the effort. And regardless of how poor your
voice is, if your heart is in it, the result won't be "bad".

IMHO, of course.