It is not that "ordinary people are not good enough to make music". Most of them don't want to. Most of them are happy for other people to make music for them to consume, just as they are happy for other people to bake their bread, make their clothes, and provide the other goods and services they use. The reason they're happy to do this is that they know that the professionals can do it better and cheaper than they can. Of course, some people like to make their own music, just as some like to bake their own bread or make their own clothes, but they're in the minority.

The role of folk music in the pre-industrial world (and industrial world, come to that) was entertainment. People then didn't have access to professional entertainment, so they had to make their own. When the invention of the gramophone and wireless gave them access to professional entertainment, they had no further need for folk music, and all but a few willingly abandoned it. We may find that regrettable, but it was their choice.

The simple fact is, modern society doesn't need folk music. It no longer has a role, except for a few hobbyists. Even those of us who are deeply involved with folk music engage with it very differently from the way traditional singers used to. To imagine that the majority of people just need to be exposed to folk songs in order to return to some imagined pre-industrial idyll where they spend their days singing to each other is simply fantasy.

The way you go on, anyone would think that large festivals with a preponderance of professional performers are the only outlet for folk music, when they are just one of many. People can choose to go to these, or to folk clubs, house concerts, pub sessions, even communal self-help events where they can shit in a field if they like - most choose to go to a variety of these.

You claim to want to spread folk music, but spend your whole time arguing for a one-size-fits-all approach which would reduce the diversity of ways in which it can be spread.