I could jump any one of the points in your last post, Conrad, but I have limited time right now, so I'll just take on this one:

" Discrimination against people who are not brilliant performers is still discrimination."

I see no point in going to see and hear a performer who is not particularly good, or is possibly so poor he or she sets my teeth on edge. In the same way that, when at the grocery store, I will buy a pound of fresh butter rather than a pound of rancid butter—even though the rancid butter may be discounted.

Discrimination? Yes, indeed it is! The ability to make choices between something which is of good quality and something which is not is, among other things, one of the qualities that has kept our species alive throughout the ages.

If a person who wishes to perform for others finds that he or she can't get people to listen to them, that's a clear message that they either need to work harder and improve their performances or chose some other line of endeavor.

If you make a crappy product and put it on the market, no one is morally bound to buy it.

Well, let's see. I'll take on this one, too:

"Removing all bariers will create much more demand through direct unobstructed participation."

Not unless it's something desirable in the first place. And it's not just the genre of music, it's the quality of performance as well. If you feel it is worthwhile, you should want to present it to people in the most advantageous way, not turn them off by confronting them with a hairy, obese apparition who sings like a malfunctioning fog horn.

Even if it is folk music. ESPECIALLY because it is folk music. Crappy performers can actually drive audiences away and discourage them from coming back.

Don Firth