Musical snobbery

The charts are a popularity contest, no debate there, so it is little surprise that the gaps between what the public lap up in their millions and the preference and critical opinions of the music press. Last year, when X-Factor finally rolled over and crushed the last musical hopes of a generation, the recipe for success never seemed more obvious - take a bunch of artists, whittle away any elements that the majority of people don't like and you will end up with someone who is the least offensive to the most number of people. That is why, at the end of the 'competition' you ended up with a man called Steve from Leeds who sang cover version.

And now the music press are struggling to understand the popularity of James Blunt. Of course he is bland, of course he is boring, of course he is the middle of the road - that is why he is so popular. In an increasingly hermoginised industry how is the casual music listener to find new artists when there is such meagre choice in the first place? James Blunt succeeds because there are no people being offered up to replace him - criticise the horrific tedium of his music, by all means, but please stop expressing disbelief at his success. He is the natural product of an industry that grows less and less risky by each day. James Blunt may be the nadir of popular music, but at least he's a fair representation of the state of it.