I've come to the conclusion that there are two types of people in the world. Normal people, and people with, "the performance gene". I appear to be of the second type. When I say performance, I'm talking about any kind of public performance, on stage, radio, TV, film, or public speaking.

I came up with the idea of the Performance Gene, after a conversation with a blues singer I know. We had been discussing how non-performer friends just didn't understand why we (performers) need to get up there, and risk public humiliation. It was a relief, I can tell you, to find that I wasn't the only person to experience this.

The other PG factor was the resultant high, gained from a successful show. I remember driving home after my first solo radio show, feeling a buzz in my head that I'd not felt for several years. Then it hit me. The last time I'd felt like that was after performing on stage (in plays) back in the UK.

And so, like some tragic fantasy figure, I and other PG folk are doomed to wander the Earth, looking for our next hit.

Does this lump us in the same category as all those sad-sack reality TV contestants? I 'd like to think not. I'd like to think that musicians, broadcasters, writers and actors do what they do, because they it's in their blood, because they have to do it, because on-stage is where they feel they belong.

Reality TV contestants, on the other hand, seem to be there purely for the fame aspect, for a hit of instant notoriety. It's not something they feel in the blood, it's just wanting attention.

I'm not saying that performers don't want fame, but to a large extent it's not all about fame, it's about feeling you're doing what you're good at, and making others (your audience) feel good too.

Perhaps wanting to please an audience has some Freudian subtext, but it's not something that one thinks about, when on stage/on air. The audience, however, also presents one of the down-sides to being a performer, namely, hypersensitivity.

Now there are some of you, who know me offline, who might laugh at the concept of me being associated with sensitivity, but it's true. When you're performing, you become hypersensitive to criticism - any criticism, however, unreasonable it might be, however incorrect it might be.

As I've said, I've talked with other performers (a blues singer, a jazz singer, and other radio broadcasters) and to a man (or woman) when we're "on stage" we are all way more over-sensitive than we would be in "real live".

Personally, I've only had one really abusive phone call whilst I was on air. Whilst it threw me for a while, I was lucky enough to have another broadcaster there, who hung out with me for the rest of my (late-night) show, as he knew just how over-sensitive we all are whilst performing.

My blues singing acquaintance once had comments along the lines of, "who does she think she's kidding, acting like she's raunchy and sexy at her age?" that caused her to stay in her house for three weeks, so much so that an army of friends had to go around to persuade her that she was right to ever go back on stage.

Incidentally, if Etta James can do the raunchy thing on stage at 70, then this lass (who's about my age) sure isn't too old. Besides which, I rather think the point is that raunchiness is all part of the (female) blues singing tradition.

By the way, the headline for this piece, comes from the light bulb joke, "How many actors does it take to change a light bulb?". The answer is, 10. One to change the light bulb, and nine to say, "that could have been me up there!".

OK, so in summary, I guess I'm saying that there are some of us who are doomed by our very DNA to get up in public and make fools of ourselves. Also, that it's not always about achieving fame, it's about doing what you're good at, and that it's likely that even Ray Liotta and James Gandolfini worry about what people think of them.

The difference between them and me, is that they could have you wacked.