"I've read this sentence several times, Glueman, but I don't really understand it."

In the the Mudcat world 1954 definitions exercise some people because they believe they lend traditional music something 'more'. More what is the question.
More authenticity? More quality? More bangs for your buck? I've no idea because I can't hear the difference. If I have to look up in a book whether a piece is original or a pastiche it doesn't matter, I've already left the aural dimension music occupies. So it's of interest only to people who are interested in non-musical factors.

Fans are fully entitled to like Bolivian jula julas or lyrics containing a plethora of consonants, that's their business. What they aren't entitled to do (IMO) is dictate where the boundaries of folk are in musical terms.
The reality is an unhealthy number of folk enthusiasts believe this dubious historical verissimilitude translates into something they can hear and it informs their tastes. Well sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't, I certainly wouldn't rely on it and yet many people seem to think folk is what-they-like musically which is completely illogical.

The problem may well be in the club rather than folk. I enjoy traditional music as a consumer but participatory folk music that isn't progressive seems a complete absurdity.