Via: The New York Times
The New York Times published a review of Joanna Newsom's show this past Monday at Webster Hall, and it's chock-full of mixed feelings. On the one hand, the reviewer seemed to be impressed by the experience of seeing Newsom in a live setting: "Still, there'''s something about hearing her perform songs like ''"Only Skin''" '' 199 lines of poetry '' entirely from memory. There'''s something to watching her play ''"Sawdust & Diamonds,''" 10 unaccompanied minutes long and full of rigorous, rhythmic harp arpeggios." Comparisons are even made to Bob Dylan (!) although to be fair it's unclear whether they're meant to be complimentary or not.
The review takes issue with Newsom's new material though. The argument can essentially be boiled down to "where's the singles man?":
"Ys is an exercise in sustaining melody through extended form, but between its downcast tone and its emphasis on poetry, it loses some of the rhythmic and melodic power that Ms. Newsom can develop in a four-minute song. The new songs had their moments '' as when 4/4 suddenly shifted into 6/8 during ''"Emily''" '' but none delivered the power of her earlier songs like ''"The Book of Right-On,''" in which Ms. Newsom built a powerfully percussive, syncopated vamp all by herself. (She played that song as an encore; this was a show in which an encore was needed as relief."
So, which is better? Newsom's new material, or her older songs?