Why ever make it an "either/or" thing? There's music just for listening to and music that's part of a multimedia experience and that's scarcely a new concept. In the youth of many of those posting (and mine too, as it goes), there were song/dance/light/film performances - remember UFO, Incredible String Band, Exploding Galaxy?...I used to go to that one night then Paul Simon or Harvey Andrews the next. I'm not especially brain damaged as a result.

Not that it all started with Joe Boyd.    Tschaikovsky's 1812? Handel's Royal Fireworks? Appalachian step/frail/singing? Mediaeval mystery and mumming plays? Morris, clog and molly...?

And Madonna is a trained and experienced dancer. You may not like her act but it's impossible to deny the effort and skill of the choreography that goes into it. The Stones put on a performance of total excitement, high energy and great songs while in total contrast, Dylan comes on, plays and sings and rarely even acknowledges the audience. Are the many thousands the world over who continue to flock to both sorts of concert indiscriminate or schizophrenic? I don't think so. Like me, they love music so long as it's good.

This forum is always very keen to give Jim Moray a kicking. Why? Because of his versatility? This is someone who can perform on his own with an acoustic guitar in a small room or on a mainstage or theatre with electric guitar and piano, as a traditional duo with his sister, as a trio/quartet or whatever combination with or without multimedia effects as a "nu-folk/techno" or whatever pseudo label you choose to give it in venues across (so far) three continents.

Art Garfunkel, however, just stands and sings. Granted, extremely well (so long as you can keep all those rabbits out of your mind). It's not a criticism, just a statement of fact.