As to the role of the music critic, I've never spent too much time reading critic's reviews anyway. I like Abraham Lincoln's approach to reviewing, which was, "People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like". What I've always found more useful was a trusted source - somebody whose tastes I knew and respected who could point me in the right direction. I've had several such friends over the years, the most long-standing and prolific of which has been Brian. There is no question that the Internet makes it possible for such people to spread their advice more readily, but it also creates a real challenge in sorting out the good information from the bad (the good being those people with whom I generally agree, and the bad being everybody else).

As for the "next great thing", I don't see a problem there. There is a natural evolution that goes on all the time as artists inspire each other. You couldn't keep it static if you tried. The challenge from my perspective is to find the artists that are creating things that I like amidst the enormous volume of stuff that is out there. emusic.com is a great example - I've never heard of most of the bands there, and I don't have time to sample them all. I do believe that the big companies played a role in this with their enormous marketing budgets. They helped artists get exposure and find their audience, but their work was limited to a relatively small number of carefully chosen artists. And they won't go away - regardless of how technology empowers independent musicians to create and release music, it will still be profitable for companies with bigger budgets to create and promote pop stars.

I take umbrage at your suggestion that pop music is ephemeral. Going back to Kyle's point of the subjectivity of music, on what basis can you condemn such an enormous volume and variety of music? Within the banner of pop music there is stunning musicianship, deeply insightful commentary, innovative arrangement and production - and a whole lot of drivel, of course. But what makes music great? I have a friend who is into superb acoustic guitar playing, and who sends me links like this. Jaw-droppingly good playing, but I don't have any desire to sit and listen to a whole album of it. Is that superior in some fundamental way to "Don't Wait for Tom", which is the song that most recently really got me going? Some of this pop music is going to last for ever (or at least for as long as people are recording and saving music).

Finally, the value of the album. I think that a song in isolation is more limited than a song in the context of a larger work. Within the context of that larger work, the artist can explore musical and lyrical themes more effectively. It doesn't have to be an "album" of course, and I think that we'll see more experementation with form and structure in the future. And with that, I must go and cook dinner....