Dudfoot, I agree abhout the performance of a song being more than the song itself, but has it happened to you to have listened several times to someone's passionate and sensitive singing, and liked them for it, only to find out accidentally years later that at the time the singer you admired had been a wife-beater? Or an embezzler? Or that they had repeatedly beaten their step-son to the point of hospitalisation? Because I have - all three cases I mention.

And of course, any friendship that existed between me and them ceased to be once I found out those things. But I could not deny having enjoyed their singing when I knew none of those things. This led me to think: Had my enjoyment been false at the time? (Answer: No, I had genuinely enjoyed them). Had their singing changed once I learnt what they had done? (Answer: No, it was just as good). What had undoubtedly changed was my perception of them as people.

In the interests of objectivity I resolved therefore to always try to dissociate the singer's personality from the performance, with the one exception when their performance is in support of a cause I disagree with - what I call a 'militant' or 'militarised' performance. Which is why I would not give Michael Jackson the time of day, but I will listen to his songs, especially the early ones, with pleasure.

So while your argument is logical, I would argue that it leaves too much room for subjectivity and is therefore impractical in the real world, as exemplified by the three cases I mentioned above.