There has been much talk here about how some bands, artistes, and performances are considered to be "entertaining". Usually, the implication is that performers who are lively, humourous, and/or provide a spectacle of some sort are "entertaining" while more serious musicians(or those who take themselves seriously) are not.

A one time co-opted member of The Edinburgh Folk Club Committee in the mid eighties once stated "I never really enjoy a night out unless I can have a good belly laugh!" Needless to say, the rest of us soon kicked that idea into touch. :-)

Of course, there *IS* a place for humour in performance and within the folk scene but I'd argue that an evening can still be entertaining without it. It is surely in the eyes or ears of the beholder.
To me, good music and song performed well is entertainment. The only thing I would ask is that the performers play or sing to/for the audience rather than themselves and make an effort to communicate (It doesn't always happen!). The stage presentation should be as professional as possible but it doesn't need to be funny, slick, or spectacular. Quite often, all that just compensates for deficiencies in the music.

Of course, I wouldn't wish the introductions to be too stuffy either like an academic lecture but that's just a personal view. Many people appreciate that sort of thing and, surely, this is enjoyment and entertainment to them?
As I said elsewhere, it's all a matter of personal taste and choice.

Incidentally, the definition of entertainment in The Oxford Online Dictionary is as follows

1. entertainment n.
the action of providing or being provided with amusement or enjoyment. • an event or performance designed to entertain. • the provision of hospitality.

All I ask is that the performer believes in what they do and presents it honestly and to the best of their ability - after that it's all down to personal taste. The one thing I can't stand is a "false" act, usually slick, over-produced and more than a little cynical - no names, no pack drill!

Obviously the Oxford Online Dictionary definition is not what you're looking for here John J.

I think to be entertaining an act/performer has to communicate with the audience. The McCalmans, for me, seem to do this perfectly. Something that probably takes years to perfect. This may be why some younger bands get criticised for lacking in entertainment value. Great musician but have not been around long enough to know how to work an audience, and of course many bands don't stay together for long now unlike the Macs.
It does though as Kegan says come "down to personal taste".

Iwent to see Van Morrison at Stirling Castle and it has to be one of the worst gigs I,ve ever attended.he had absolutely no rapport or interest in the people who were paying their hard earned to see him.I got the impression he was clockwatching and the helicopter was revving up in the background for a quick getaway.musically he and the band were note perfect(re- John J),basically he treated the fans with contempt,a lot of whom afterwards vowed never to put another penny in his so called genius trousers,

Wouldn't entertainment simply be anything which distracts and takes one off the day-to-day treadmill for a time? It doesn't _have_ to be humorous, although given how much of pain in the podex life can sometimes be, humour might certainly be a default choice for many.

I should think anything which allows one to forget there are bills to be paid, gutters to be cleaned and an overflowing "in" basket at work, counts...whether that's concert, play, film, a conversation or simply watching a squirrel try to pilfer a bird-feeder...as long as it provides a break, it's entertainment and if it makes one smile in the process, then so much the better.

The twice I saw Van Morrison, in Ingliston (1979)and at Glasgow Green (1992), he was exactly as you describe and I wouldn't go to see him again out of choice. He's just a "grumpy old b--t-rd", in fact!

However, you'll recall that I also said

"The only thing I would ask is that the performers play or sing to/for the audience rather than themselves and make an effort to communicate (It doesn't always happen!).

which is just a slightly higher expectation than "note perfect".

Deirdre yo,re exactly right,I just wished I,d paid a few bills rather than giving it to Van the disinterested

It was a similar experience when I went to see Bob Dylan, although he wasn't grumpy...only disinterested. He mumbled his way through the entire night and didn't look at or attempt to communicate with the audience at all.

Surprisingly, when I've mentioned this to some diehard Dylan fans they just saw it as part of his charm. "That's just Bob" and so on.
So, they would probably have found it entertaining in their own way. Not me, though!

Last time I saw Van was also at Glasgow Green in 1992. He was indeed a grumpy auld get! I went off half way through as a disinterested performer makes for a disinterested punter in my view. In a tent nearby there was something amazing happening. The crowd were captivated, mouths open everywhere and feet tapping. That was the first time I had heard of or seen one Sharon Shannon. I think the main difference was something called 'charisma'. I would like to hear a definition for that.

It makes you wonder why people like Van the disinterested and Bob the I,dratherbesomewhereelse still do live gigs. it,s not for the money and certainly not for the pleasure.

If I had to define "charisma", Bob, I'd call it, "An indescribable, yet perceptible, empathic quality which attracts others and permits the individual possessing it to transmit their enthusiasms/passions on an emotional, as well as intellectual, level...a type of unintentional charm."

Tubeman I was at the Van gig in Stirling when I shouldn't have been. All that standing ain't good for the health. I've avoided him ever since. Total meanness of spirit inexcuseable in any performer.
Every cloud has a silver lining tho', I'm going to a festival in Ireland in July and he's top of the bill on the Saturday. I'll be out of the car park an hour before the crowds. As for charisma, it may not match Deirdre's unintentional charm definition and I'm sure it's not but Bill Clinton still has it in spades.

I agree with the various comments that part of the knack of good presentation is to communicate with the audience. This is almost impossible to achieve if the performer sings with his/her eyes closed. So why do some performers do this? I have been tempted to get everyone to leave the room quietly while the shut-eyed singer is in full flight, so that he/she finds him/herself in an empty room when the song is finished and eyes are re-opened!

Strangely enough, I'm guilty of this when singing acoustically (can't change it, sorry, despite trying), but not with a mic, as I then need to be aware of my position and have a natural focus point. Personally, it doesn't bother me as a listener, as I'm far more interested in what the singer sounds like, than what they look like.

As long as the performer is enjoying his/herself then that is usually communicated to the audience. If someone is uptight and nervous then the audience feel it but if they are relaxed and 'up for it' then the audience seem to relax and enjoy themselves.

Some serious folkies (and ain't they a giggle)seem to equate enjoyment and fun with being flippant. They want serious musicians playing serious music in a serious manner and don't believe that you can have fun while still being serious about the music you play.

Sorry if I've ranted a wee bit on this but its my first post here and my fingers are understandibly nervous.

My impression of Mick's meaning, Kagan, isn't so much about how closed eyes look, but how the lack of eye contact with the audience contributes to the sensation "disconnect" between it and the performer. Whether it's a folk singer or speaker, looking up and around the room gives the impression of being engaged with the folks in the seats...even if the performer can't see anything but the first row because the stage lights are too bright, looking about gives the impression of interest in the audience and their reaction.

In fact, this holds true even in one-to-one conversations...a person who consistently refuses to make eye contact is usually judged more harshly (whether the impression is true or not) than one who does...my gut feeling is that people who are routinely described as "charismatic" make eye contact naturally.

Viper, did you mean President Clinton or is there also a musical performer by that name?

I appreciate that Deirdre - to be honest, the gigs I do tend only to have 1 row and the stage lights are usually a couple of 60 watt bulbs! Closing my eyes tends to be instinctive, usually because I'm desperately trying to remember the next line of the song!

I understand your point, Kagan, I suspect we all sometimes close our eyes or look off in the distance when we're trying to recall something...I know my Overlord continually looks over his shoulder when I'm trying to access my memory just to see if my answer is already written on the wall behind him. :-)

But performers/presenters, by the very nature of their work, are held to a higher standard in that regard than those filling the seats...it may not be fair, but it's true. When a person goes to see a performance/presentation they expect the presenter to be pulled together and in control...no stage fright or hesitation allowed. It's why, in rhetoric courses, you're given all these tricks (some work, some don't) for coping...so that even if you're scared spitless, you can fake it and connect with the audience. From the perspective of the seats, that connection makes or breaks a performance...witness all the negative comments on this thread about "disinterested" performers.

(I'm very fortunate in that regard...a Scot in the land of unabashed Albaphiles...the moment I start speaking the accent alone brings them into my court and it's a sight easier to connect with an audience when they've already gone half the distance.)

I am often guilty of closing my eyes during the singing of a Muckle Sang because I can see the pictures better that way! Wouldn't normally kick off with "Sheath and Knife" or "The Cruel Mother", of course, but once you have got your audience it's no bad thing to have them just listen.

Sometimes that quality of stillness that Maureen Jelks has, for example, is the most spellbinding thing imaginable. And Belle Stewart always said that if you couldn't tell the story just with the voice you were in the wrong place!