At a record store listening booth, I listened to the first track and the first minute or so of the next five, and there was nothing grabbing me, and it sounded pretty Bjork. Like a lot of "music with an unusual concept in it's production", I found the idea more compelling than the actual results. At this point she's in my bin marked "artists who have exhausted my benefit of the doubt owing to my finite amounts of time and money", along with Radiohead, Merzbow, live Phish recordings, John Tesh, the films of Kevin Smith, Skrewdriver, all of the post-'91 output of Philip Glass, and many others. So, I'm unlikely to spend actual money and time to confirm what several previous years of Bjork exposure have revealed: a lack of compatibility between her musical art and my powers of appreciation. And besides, my point is not to confirm or deny the perceived worth of any particular piece of art, but rather to emphasize that it's important to be sure that one isn't mistaking "novel" for "good". A recording of someone playing piano with just their nose, for instance, isn't really all that interesting to listen to...twice, regardless of the novel approach, or the difficulty the performer faced in working in such a manner.. And maybe not even once if you don't know the back story. Remember Bang On A Can's version of "Music For Airports"? So, I'm glad you enjoy the new Bjork, but I'm not just knee-jerking my rejection of it. TravisH On Sep 6, 2004, at 4:11 PM, Loopers-Delightemail@example.com wrote: > I guess she had to finance the new album. Have you even heard it? > The bulk of it is not pop music, I think it's amazing.