I'm just musing that an activity that involves informal socialising, enjoying the crack/craic, often getting a bit pissed with your mates, singing old songs and changing things a bit because you can't quite remember it all or like it better your way/your dad's way, same with old tunes, doing your own thing with people of similar sentiment, etc., needs a bunch of academics in a committee room to anguish over a definition of what we're doing/should be doing/shouldn't really be doing if we want to call it what they see as "folk..."

The point was to define the remit of an association with its own journal. If you could write up enough of the social interactions you listed in a sufficiently enlightening way, you might have got your article accepted, though it would have taken some work. This is what you'd have been trying to fit into. Looks pretty straightforward to me what the writers were interested in discussing with each other.

Part of the index for the first few volumes

Do you see anything there about telling people in a British pub what to do? Entomologists don't give orders to cockroaches.