tinue to exist, but to their authors’ disadvantage sadly, as being evidences of their lack of insight. Thereby, the influential critic Michael Watts (who had yet signed in the British Music magazine Melody Maker a sensitive, thorough and receptive review of Hejira) bashes Mingus with these rather unfortunate words, in the June 16, 1979 issue of the magazine: "This album really sees Joni Mitchell leaving her mass popularity, in search of a more personal style, and finding only idiosyncrasy".
Note the use of a last "clever" word that meant to strike the last blow, but definitively lacks any sense in the context of the sentence : according to the dictionary, "idiosyncrasy" does not designate anything other than an individual's particular behavior (e.g. "a strange or unusual habit, way of behaving, or feature that someone or something has"), in short a singularity. So one wonders why such a reproach is made to Mingus, if the album’s main flaw is to assert what makes its author's personality specific and original … Because, as a general rule and especially in the Arts' domain, that is just the quality that one expects to find in an artist’s production -whether one is an eminent critic like Mr. Watts or a simple reader like me and so many others. To be completely honest, it is also true that the word "idiosyncrasy" in English (and that is not the case in French) can also designate sometimes the artificiality resulting from "mannerisms" and "tricks" detectable in an artist’s production. This mainly concerns artists who go round in circles, using artificial and repeated stylistic tricks in the practice of their art. If by chance this was the meaning that Michael Watts intended to express when using this word in his Mingus review's specific step, what a pity that his own journalistic "idiosyncrasy" did not encourage him to use a clearer and simpler language to define his thinking.

For example, if Michael Watts felt that Joni Mitchell with Mingus found herself stranded in a creative impasse because of her experimental inclinations, or if he felt that she had trapped herself in the meanders of a wanton quest for originality at all price, for no other results than obscurity and pretention, then the comment would at least have been understandable -even if eminently questionnable, still. But at least that sort of statement would have been clear.

But here the use of "idiosyncrasy" sounds like a door slammed shut. Or worse, it has the brutality of a guilty verdict sentencing Mitchell’s work to the death penalty. And above all, because of its basic signification, it appears out of place and inappropriate in the concerned context. Perhaps its use is simply an example of what often happened when the critics dealt with Joni Mitchell’s work : the level of the lady's writings imposed the reviewer to try and match the musician's literary excellence. But I am afraid that no matter how the use of that specific statement might be interpreted in this case, it misses completely its point. Because, fortunately for Joni Mitchell and unfortunately for Michael Watts, posterity decided that Mingus was not idiosyncratic at all. But was just a true masterpiece, that has become a classic. 

Not being a music critic myself, and speaking only on behalf of my feelings and my passion for Joni Mitchell's work, I will not attempt to chronicle extensively one by one the albums of Joni Mitchell, because all of the Web's pages would not suffice -and all these albums have already been reviewed with skill and accuracy (please refer to www.jonimitchell.com site, which contains many interesting reviews – including the ones that are not necessarily always positive about the musician's work)