I think a lot has to do with how you define entertainment. One of the key ingredients
is that there is a definable personality.

Another strange aspect is that if you get to know
these incredible performers, you find them shy in social settings. They carry onstage
their need to communicate socially and offstage they retreat into a personal shell.
This isn't true for every performer but the ones that become famous seem to have this
characteristic. They are generally very private people. So onstage, they channel this
energy of reaching out to people and it intensifies before the public.

Personality is more significant than musical skills. It defines for example phrasing
in a song. Louis Armstrong had a sandpaper voice but his personality, phrasing,
and intensity made him one of the greatest living entertainers of all time.

In folk music, the definable personality is one that looks like it's supposed to, of
the "people", probably rural in appearance, easily identifiable with the image of a
folk singer. The look, the intense personality, the interaction with the public who
feels they "know" this person is a package that is sold on one level or another.

This "package" may have a limited audience or reach large crowds.

Some performers are more relevant to a particular time period. Values and mores
change over time and are reflected in the acceptance of the performer.

To say that "greatness" occurs in one period of time and not another just means
that people see "greatness" differently. This has more to do with empathy for
a particular style or time.

As an older person, I am partial to music that I grew up with. I can identify with this
better and so my preferences influence my choice of performer.

What makes a performer great in my humble opinion is their durability over time.

Frank Hamilton