of all the critical disciplines, that of music review is by far the most wanting. partly to do with the fact that music is the most sentimental of arts; but also because the people who find their way towards its criticism have little interest in the craft of writing and/or a very narrow field of cultural reference.

good music is crystallised emotion - its appeal is rarely intellectual. how then to critique such a thing? i think the answer is to respond in writing as you would to the music: personally. most music criticism dodges this bullet and attempts to intellectualise what is not cerebral. the results are wan, hollow and disastrous.

the intellectual take on joanna newsom's new record is: that it's audaciously epic (by which they mean: bogged down in layers of unnecessary sound, sprawling and overlong. it's debt to classical music is immediate intellectual kudos - what is this? pop music reaching for the lofty heights of the highbrow? must be amazing then...etc etc.

the true test of 'ys' will be born out soon enough. after all the beard stroking and bullshit hype has died off, people will be left with a record they can't engage with, and will turn to 'the milk eyed mender' instead.

the worst of it is that joanna newsom will think she's doing something right - and will make lazier records. she'll think that she need never edit, or work inside disciplined forms again. the results will be cacophony and glossolalia.

i have read the accidental, yes - and it will feature in my book list, largely because i read it this year, since that's when the paperback came out.