Al, no one disagrees with the fact that the 'folk' have voted with their feet. For decades, mass culture has been more interested in commercial popular music than in traditional music. That may or may not be regrettable, depending on your point of view.

However it is irrelevant to what goes on in folk clubs. These were never intended to reflect current popular or 'folk' culture - they are governed by an aesthetic approach rather than a sociological or ethnomusicological one. The folk clubs were (and are) places to enjoy a specific musical genre, which has at its core a particular style of treating traditional material.

For reasons partly to do with the origins of the folk revival and partly to do with an ethos of encouraging ordinary people to perform, folk clubs have always been more or less accepting of quite a wide range of other types of music which have only a tenuous relationship either to the core tradition or the revival style of playing. That is both their strength and their weakness. It has meant however that folk clubs have been seen as a suitable outlet for a wide range of performers who don't fit easily into other genres and might otherwise find it difficult to find other venues in which to perform.

They have also come to regard their music as 'folk' and may come to believe that they have an automatic right to be accepted in folk clubs, and may even feel aggrieved when their talents are not as widely appreciated as they feel they deserve. The reality is simply that their music is on the fringe of what the folk clubs are based upon, and will only find a limited audience within this genre.

I don't think most other genres would be as tolerant. Try going into a jazz club or classical music group with your guitar or melodeon - I think you'll soon be asked more or less politely to try elsewhere.