One thing I find amusing is that the old fogies above (meaning no disrespect) refer to "content" when they mean lyrics and melody. In fact, dancers, in-your-face-screaming, pyrotechnics, multimedia and the lot ARE content. You may happen to think they're crap, but they're still content, and they're part of what people pay to go to concerts for. I happen to be in my mid 30s, so I may be at the age where one is most likely to be a a Simon and Garfunkel fan, and at the same time recognize that the other stuff counts as content too. But surely people considerably older than me have gone to concerts for "content" that wasn't pure music. The Who were busting up guitars on stage back when Simon and Garfunkel were young, and Chubby Checker encouraged his audiences to "Do the Twist" before that. People went to see Elvis for the pelvis.

I do like the pure music, by the way, and it results in an interesting fact: most of the time, I'd rather listen to a CD, even in folk music. At concerts, there's too much distraction, be it smoke, noise, uncomfortable seats, etc. In addition, the music is usually not as good, due usually to poorer sound than in a studio. Finally, most concerts cost as much as a CD or more, and the CD lasts for years. So in the end, for me the main reason to go to a concert IS the visual part. I happen to be happy if the only dancing is Martin Simpson's fingers on a fretboard, but it's still the visual stuff that gets me into a venue.

By the way, I don't necessarily agree with what Harvey said about "those whippersnappers shouldn't be allowed to criticize S & G unless they have a sense of history, perspective, etc. etc." Or rather, I think it would be nice in an ideal world but it doesn't sound like THIS world. Since when has TV cared about that stuff? The kids' function is to say whether they liked the concert. The reason that a TV station employs them (as opposed to The Times or Folk Roots or whatever) is that their views are seen as likely to correspond with that of a segment of the program's audience. In other words, the under 30s who are watching TV as their source for music criticism are likely to appreciate and agree with these kids.

It is actually quite rare (at least in the US; I'll admit I only get to watch drama and comedy from the UK, not news) for a TV-based critic to be of any use to me. Few of them have any sense of history or perspective, and they all say the latest crapfest action movie is "PERFECT! A NON STOP SUMMER THRILL RIDE!!!" For that reason, for criticism of music or films, I read. (I will say that there are SOME thoughtful film critics on US TV, including Roger Ebert. But I'd rather read his reviews than watch him on the tube.)

I hope there are a lot of under 30s who are smarter than the TV program's "target audience," and go read reviews of music in newspapers and music magazines. In pop music, I think Mojo is generally an excellent magazine, and unlikely to pick a 25 year old wanker to review Simon and Garfunkel.