Artists/entertainers that we have seen in the past can of course NEVER be duplicated James Brown, Michael Jackson, PRINCE etc who single handlely: wrote majority of their music and was active in the creative artistic process of creating their music. We all can ultimately call them an artist because they strived to push artistic measures NOT only just on the stage as a performer. TO ME, that is what makes a complete entertainer. A singer who is also an artist who can fullfill entertainment through their music along with execution on the stage aka the complete entertainer

What does it take to be a complete entertainer and how would you define it?

Is it JUST how good someone dances or performs on stage OR is it also how good their material is?

Personally, I can not take a singer seriously as a complete entertainer if they obviously have no participation in the creative process OR show no desire to push creativly with their music. They dont necessarily have to write everything but just push to try to do different things creatively. Just because they might have some stage presence on stage doesnt reflect artistic quality of their music.

Also, alot of people think you need a million backup dancers to be a good entertainer or know how to dance even. What about singers like Whitney who coveyed emotion with just standing behind a microphone singing?

Do you think their is a seperation between a GREAT artist and a good performer or is it all the same? I ask because people treat these categories like they are the same when they are very different at least to me.

To conclude, which one is most important to you? Is being a great artist more important than being a great performer, vice versa or both

[Edited 11/15/12 15:19pm]

I don't know if it matters that much.

Have a ever seen Luther Vandross in person? The dude was extremely good yet he barely moved, din't dance and wrote about 50% or less of his hits.

Graycap23 said:

I don't know if it matters that much.

Have a ever seen Luther Vandross in person? The dude was extremely good yet he barely moved, din't dance and wrote about 50% or less of his hits.

Yea but thats Lufa He dont count!

I guess it doesnt matter to as long as the music is good and they can convey emotion when they sing

I don't really put a lot of importance on the Artist as a Performer, per se. I know a lot of folks really like to get an elaborate stage performances but, for me, as long as they give a great vocal performance, the theatrics aren't necessary. They can stand in the same spot for one hour, just give me some kick-ass vocals!

Yes. The main thing is simply the artist performing the material at

a high level and connecting with the audience.

In some cases, yeah.

James, MJ, Prince, these guys would work hard to make sure their show went just as well as the music that accompanied it.

In other cases, if the music isn't always good, their performances would enhance them. Like for instance, take Patti Labelle. IMHO, she wasn't as much a great artist as she was a great performer. As a performer she ranks up there as far as drama. Or Tina Turner (though her music with Ike was outstanding and I dig her solo work), she's also looked on as a legend for her performing prowess but you can count her hits on both fingers.

Others like Marvin, their artistry was greater than the performances but they still brought something in their performances that makes them stand out.

It depends on what type of artist it is.

Kate Bush is considered a great artist by many, and she has rarely performed live. As far as I recall, she did want to go on tour in the late 70s but I think she has only given one or two concerts in her life.

Can´t be bothered to check Wikipedia now...but I know she´s not really into live performances.

However, she is a great artist.

Then there are some great performers who are born to be on stage and sing well, but they have never really written a single hit and their biggest hits were written by others but they are still considered great artists, and rightfully so.

phunkdaddy said:

Yes. The main thing is simply the artist performing the material at

a high level and connecting with the audience.

I agree as well

I just think entertainment doesnt always have to equal spetacle, dancing, etc. It can just simply be someone standing behind a microphone giving a good vocal performance.

Performing is only a redirection to the artist's body of work. And If the artist's music has substance(i.e. resonates with people) it will endure long after that artist is no longer performing or living.

Its all about the music, its the alpha and the omega. If dancing, video and showmanship don't contribute to or attract the audience back to the music, then they're only distractions.

Harlepolis said:

Performing is only a redirection to the artist's body of work. And If the artist's music has substance(i.e. resonates with people) it will endure long after that artist is no longer performing or living.

Its all about the music, its the alpha and the omega. If dancing, video and showmanship don't contribute to or attract the audience back to the music, then they're only distractions.

I agree with this as well.

As long as I like the music I could care less if they are a good performer, it's a great bonus if they are though

it only matters if for YOU, a great artist NEEDS to be great performer. lots of good examples already given of those who are great artists but not performers, but your question did give me pause. those artists that I look FORWARD to seeing and by whom I'm more thoroughly entertained are also great performers. I have to mentally prepare myself for what I'm going to GET from a show though from an artist that is more artist than performer.

I don't care as long as I like the music.

And for the record, Whitney didn't dance but she PERFORMED her ass off.

Several of her concerts are on youtube, you guys should look them up. She took you on rollercoaster with her voice. She knew how to work the stage. She grew up singing in front of people so it was natural to her.

Terrib3Towel said:

I don't care as long as I like the music.

And for the record, Whitney didn't dance but she PERFORMED her ass off.

Several of her concerts are on youtube, you guys should look them up. She took you on rollercoaster with her voice. She knew how to work the stage. She grew up singing in front of people so it was natural to her.

I saw one of her '91 and '94 shows and I have to agree. Whitney knew how to ROCK IT!

Timmy84 said:

Terrib3Towel said:

I don't care as long as I like the music.

And for the record, Whitney didn't dance but she PERFORMED her ass off.

Several of her concerts are on youtube, you guys should look them up. She took you on rollercoaster with her voice. She knew how to work the stage. She grew up singing in front of people so it was natural to her.

I saw one of her '91 and '94 shows and I have to agree. Whitney knew how to ROCK IT!

You better believe it.

La Houston slayed and snatched wigs her ENTIRE career.

[Edited 11/15/12 17:54pm]

Terrib3Towel said:

I don't care as long as I like the music.

And for the record, Whitney didn't dance but she PERFORMED her ass off.

Several of her concerts are on youtube, you guys should look them up. She took you on rollercoaster with her voice. She knew how to work the stage. She grew up singing in front of people so it was natural to her.

Trust me I know she was the primary example I used for a singer who kicks ass on stage without dancing

Whitney would have the whole stage soaked with all that sweating, girl worked out!

Don't get me wrong, but if you are looking for entertainment you look for all the dancing, stage setups, and etc...but if you are more interested in singers/artistry, these are the people who can sing their butts off and focus on singing and showing true musical genuis....now I must say its diffrent with Prince, James Brown and Michael Jackson,to me thy showed both,,i may get cursed at but heres my list of entertainers vs. true born singers:

Entertainers:Diana Ross, Tina Turner, Beyonce, Chris Brown, Ne-Yo, Mindless Behavior, Rihanna, Usher, not saying they can't sing, they focus more on stage presence

Singers: Aretha Frankli, Gladys knight, bobby womack, fantasia, leela james, tank,

fred12 said:

Don't get me wrong, but if you are looking for entertainment you look for all the dancing, stage setups, and etc...but if you are more interested in singers/artistry, these are the people who can sing their butts off and focus on singing and showing true musical genuis....now I must say its diffrent with Prince, James Brown and Michael Jackson,to me thy showed both,,i may get cursed at but heres my list of entertainers vs. true born singers:

Entertainers:Diana Ross, Tina Turner, Beyonce, Chris Brown, Ne-Yo, Mindless Behavior, Rihanna, Usher, not saying they can't sing, they focus more on stage presence

Singers: Aretha Frankli, Gladys knight, bobby womack, fantasia, leela james, tank,

Good Point...

To me just specifically in the entertainment department, what makes a great performer is someone who strives to be creative on stage and naturally entertains. Besides Tina Turner, who I feel has a natural gift of performing the others are meh.. they copy to much and are not creative.

I exactly like Tina's raspy singing because her voice was unique and she put alot of emotion into it granted their better technical singers.

But I understand the point you were making with your comparision.

A Good Performer can work the stage with or without backup dancers and can do ballads. The problem I notice with current artists today is they focus to much on putting on a show instead of connecting with audiences. Like showing emotion with ballads and resonating but I guess if the music is bad how can that be resonated to people?

But I think ultimately if you call yourself a singer/artist than the music is what should come first.

[Edited 11/16/12 5:57am]

Well if I go to a concert, they either have to have a really good voice, but if not, they need to be entertaining onstage, with their skills and visual presentation.

Sometimes I also feel there are great artists that just happen to be great performers and that's a huge bonus because even if they didn't have that, they still have a strong catalogue and mean what they sing

What I don't like is if someone is faking it and trying too hard to tell everyone they are great instead of letting the music speak for itself, rather than have people make their own minds up through whether they consume the prouct in large numbers or not.

Harlepolis said:

Performing is only a redirection to the artist's body of work. And If the artist's music has substance(i.e. resonates with people) it will endure long after that artist is no longer performing or living.

Its all about the music, its the alpha and the omega. If dancing, video and showmanship don't contribute to or attract the audience back to the music, then they're only distractions.

I completely agree with this.

I can name lots of great artists that don't "perform" during their concerts. To name a few:

Bob Dylan

Sade

Whitney

Leonard Cohen

I would rather see the talent that the dancing and other antics.

Someone above mentioned Luther Vandross. I saw him once many years ago and he barely moves, but he doesn't have to because his voice and the way he delivered his songs were enough.

I've got way too many hip-hop albums to answer yes.

Define "perform," though.

It is a bonus, but is definately secondary. The music is always the priority for me.

I enjoy a good stage performance/dance/presence, but if the music/vocals are no good, I don't care for it at all

namepeace said:

I've got way too many hip-hop albums to answer yes.

Define "perform," though.

Most people would define a great performer as a singer who can dance or put on a visually entertaining show. I argued that it doesnt necessarily have to be that. It can be somone just standing on stage singing behind a microphone entertaining a audience with a voice by displaying emotion etc.

Tina Turner is one of the few artists who has been able to bring the same energy she has in the studio to the stage.