How does his new stuff stack up against the old? I don't really care.

Last week I heard Paul Simon's new album, So Beautiful or So What, reviewed twice on NPR. The first reviewer withholds a definitive verdict on the music. He does, however, imply that Simon may have worn out his once fruitful formulas, and that he relies now more on craftiness than sincerity. Then the review mysteriously concludes with,

Whatever the reason, Paul Simon has made an album that succeeds in blending the two best strands of his solo career: the articulate navel-gazing of his 1972 solo debut and Graceland's 25-year-old rhymin' Simon in rhythm. And only a few songs here could use the heavy hand of a rewrite.

The second reviewer offers praise after first wondering if Simon has yet again rehashed his summit solo effort, Graceland. That's yet another way of asking if Simon has worn out his once fruitful formulas, and does he rely now on craftiness instead of sincerity? The second reviewer concludes,

Maybe these familiar echoes, ghosts of past glories, are inevitable. Maybe, as happens to so many elder statesmen of pop, Simon's best work is in the past. Here's all I know: Whenever my attention drifted while listening to this mixed bag of a record, along would come a stark insight, delivered in a tone of cool ambivalence — the audio equivalent of a tug on the sleeve. That's what is so interesting about this album. It's all "Meh," "So what?" and "Heard that one before." Until, quite suddenly, it's so beautiful.

Both reviewers focus primarily on uncovering the artist's motives. Neither wants to be fooled. They elaborate on what personal drama may be unfolding behind the music rather than on what the music supposedly sounds like and whether they enjoy the sounds they hear. And both assume Simon was once in an ideal state--that of The Sincere Artist.

Often, the art critic seeks an understanding with the artist. In this case, the critics want to know that the artist has taken his own music as seriously as they do. A critic may fault a work or its artist by saying that the work failed to achieve what it meant to achieve; this is a kind of positive criticism in that the work is to be taken seriously despite its faults. A negative criticism, for example, would say that a work takes itself too seriously. Sometimes a work or artist is dismissed outright: "You can't expect me to take this seriously?"

I don't.

First review: http://www.npr.org/2011/04/04/135112880/paul-simon-back-in-graceland-with-so-beautiful
Second review: http://www.npr.org/2011/04/11/135319218/paul-simon-old-sounds-new-perspectives