"rather listen to many field recordings of real traditional singers"

But surely, all you are hearing in field recordings is a snapshot of one or two people singing at a given time, as authentic a snapshot as any recording from today really. What qualifies that recording of that particular person to be labelled "real"? We have no idea how songs were sung before recording and I'm sure some singers acted them, some projected them, some droned them and some sang them reflectively. The notes are not written down as in opera, the singers are not trained to sing in a particular way.As a lad I heard all sorts of songs performed in all sorts of styles at the family do's I went to. It seems to me we cannot say anyone is more a "traditional" singer than any other. It's just what is fashionable at the time. Otherwise the songs are museum pieces and the folk process is over, and the singers are just the same as people who belong to history re-enactment groups.
There is no right way, and we come back again to what each person or historical period or generation, likes.
We cannot claim there is a folk process and then also claim that evrything is set in stone. It's a contradiction. Surely?