Grab, greg stephens et al, I can see that my epigrammatic style in my last post has given rise to misunderstandings. My fault. Let's take my sentence "I wonder how many of the folk stars that rose to higher skies would be happy with the label "entertainer"... My guess is, none." More precisely, I ought to have written "I wonder how many of the folk stars that rose to higher skies would be happy with the label "entertainer"first and foremost... My guess is, none."

I fully agree with Don Firth's closing statement about "and". Of course a performer, be it paid or not, tries to be entertaining. He/she also tries to be a number of other positives: have clear diction, be easily understood, be accurate, be presentable, likeable, perceptive of the mood of the audience, responsive, and so on. He/she has to balance all those needs as best he/she can in order to present him/herself and the song or music to best advantage.

Nevertheless, with so many requirements, in practice priorities will prevail. The eyes may close, if this helps to remember lyrics. There may be involuntary (and to some unsightly, if you believe some of the discussions on the 'cat) hand or body movements, if this helps concentration/delivery.

In the end however, if you strip away all but the performer's one or two top priorities to get at the core of why they place themselves at risk of ridicule, disapprobation, embarassment etc, you get to the core objective.

I argue that a genre-specific performer (like folk, opera, etc) has to believe in serving the genre first and foremost - otherwise they'd be an all-rounder. Sure, I like being told after a gig that I was entertaining. It pleases me, and it also serves my purpose. But it is not my top priority, and I will stop performing the day I perceive that being entertaining is the only reason people listen, because my main purpose is different. Not "higher" or "exhaulted", or "noble" - just different, and it relates to the genre even though my material is not traditional - that is why I operate in the "folk circuit" and not some other.

And so, if in a newspaper article I was referred to as an entertainer, I would be both surprised and also mildly offended. Not because "entertainer" is an offensive term (it isn't of course, and many rightly aspire to be one). But because by naming me so to the exclusion of any other term would indicate to me that the writer has missed my main purpose, or I have failed to put it across.

So, I will always want to be entertaining. But I would never want to be just an entertainer - if that is all I am, then I had better leave it to the many who can do that better than me.