I know what you mean, Skank, but, even in the early days, I was always about the music and I have always found that a good audience reaction has not worked for me if I think the music is pants. I also enjoy a gig where the music is great even if the audience is ambivalent. I remember at age 17 or 18 having an argument with the guitar player in NWOBHM band No Quarter about 'being taken seriously' as a musician. It was around a photo shoot where the photographer wanted us to wave our 'heavy metal fists' at the camera - I remember thinking we looked like a bunch of prats. I remember never wanting to buy 'pointy' basses that looked the part because I didn't think they were serious instruments etc. I just think I was always attracted to the art of it even before I knew what the broadest sense of the art of it actually meant. I have never 'posed' on stage and have never really had the impulse to 'entertain'. Now I am a published author/biographer, I have no interest in how many copies are sold, only that the book is making a contribution to the recorded history of the music. Not sure what all of this says about me but there you are.
I would that I am not hostile to those who do want to entertain, to get the audience dancing etc and, if it happens, I get a buzz same as everyone else. My only issue is with the assumption that this is what all of us want from playing. It isn't. If I was offered a regular gig where the music was horrible but the audiences were potentially big, I would turn it down (I have turned down two tribute bands recently - Motown and Nat King Cole).