I never felt like I had a surface image to rely on that people would like - I always felt like my music would not be very fancy music, my voice is not very fancy, there is nothing hiding me from the audience.

Unfortunately most easily-digested entertainment has as much actual content as a Spongebob Squarepants episode, so the trick is to try to fit actual nourishing content into enjoyable entertainment.

A lot more people will want to hear a 5-minute singing cartoon about Communism in China than will want to read that PhD thesis, and that's the power of it even if a lot of details will be missing - that's the reason something like that often has more impact on society.

I think the benefits are tremendous, and the power of accessibility in art is one of it's most explosive and insidious attributes.

The funny thing is that some reviews are published in magazines and websites that are seen by millions of people, and other reviews are in very small publications or less popular websites, and you just have to be lucky to have the good reviews land in places where more people see them, and bad reviews land in places where they will be less seen.

What can you think when one review says "this album is brilliant, and all the songs flow into the utmost brilliant song 'The Upside-Down Cross'" then another review says "this album is brilliant, except for that horrible and pointless song 'The Upside-Down Cross'," and another review will say "Jeffrey really sounds confident and relaxed on this new album", the next reviewer says "Jeffrey sounds more depressed and awful than ever" - these totally contrasting reviews happen all the time!

Everybody has a direct view of the person "behind" the art, so there is going to be a certain amount of awareness of who is making songs. But I like paintings where you can see the brush-strokes.