In order to succeed* any artist must in my opinion as a minimum:-

1.       Be technically very competent.

Isn't technical competence overrated? There are some brilliant technicians out there, but how much more important is passion and soul? For me some of my favourite artists aren't that technically great but have a certain integrity than more than makes up for it. Some people can of course combine the two...

2.       Ideally have some unique characteristic

Ok...

3.       Pursue a relentless campaign of publicity and networking to maximise exposure

Know what you mean, but I see plenty of folks who have done this, done okay and are still rubbish...

4.       Play what the current market wishes to hear

Chasing the current fads and fashions is the job of also-rans and copyists. I know some folks like to keep hearing more of the same and are wary of innovation, but look at who the revered artists who are feted and remembered are and they are nearly all innovators or iconoclasts rather than camp followers and sturdy, workmanlike give 'em what they want merchants...

5.       Be persistent and get lucky

Absolutely.

(* Define success, by the way. Artistic? Commercial? Critical?)

***************

John P suggests: For a performance, you are supposed to be pleasing an audience

I'd rather have someone who was pleasing themselves - and pleased me as a side effect - than someone whose objective was to was try to please me. Does that make sense? There's adanger that audience pleasing as a strategy might result in lowest-common-denominator music... and end up pleasing no-one.

**************

And I forget who suggested artists needed to dress suitably, but I'd suggest back that folk music shouldn't have a dress code. Though of course it does. Several, in fact....