"They engage directly with the audiences they sing to."
Right on, with this - I cannot recall a singer who has been successful in interpreting a song from the printed page - this, as poetry reading, is a skill in itself requiring much practice!!
It is, in my opinion, what makes folk song and the folk scene unique.
The folk scene has been bedeviled by 'amateurism' in the form of a 'near enough for folk song' approach which manifests itself in singing that falls below an acceptable standard, out-of-tune accompaniment and by singers not knowing their songs well enough to sing them without having to read them.
I don't find it easy to learn songs; I never really have, but having reached a 'certain age', the process has become more difficult, so I have been forced to limit myself to the number of new songs I take on if I am going to perform them in public.
When I see younger singers reading songs in public I have to assume that they haven't put in the work in order not to have to do this, so why sing if you can't be bothered or don't have time.
If you are genuinely unable to remember songs, perhaps singing in public is not for you (singing among intimate friends who are prepared to accept your problem is a different matter).
When thse arguments come up I'm always reminded of the Monty Python sketches of the one-legged actor applying for the role of Tarzan and the man with double vision wishing to lead the expedition to scale the 'twin peaks of Mount Everest'
Learning songs to sing in public takes work, some of us have to work harder than others to do so - as far as I am concerned, the songs I want to sing are worth it, otherwise I wouldn't bother.
Most of us are amateurs - 'amateurism' is something else.
Jim Carroll