Blurb from today PF review:

'The Messenger is the big, bright, jangly guitar rock LP that Smiths fans would have killed for in 1994, full of fantastic guitar tones, and cavernous choruses. But in 2013, it exists in its own, hermetically sealed context.'

Which I didn't read, nor have I heard Marr's record. That's not the point.

Here's what I'm saying: If it's good it's good and end-of.

I listen to a band like Iceage... and OK, two records are pretty good...but not 8.6, hello!...and...

God knows there are dozens of better punk records. Some by new bands like Japandroids, Metz, the Men, ToD, Icarus Line, etc...

And a whole shitload by bands from the old days, like the Damned, the Buzzcocks, 999 (although they really only had that one great song, Homicide), DK, Black Flag, Wire, Sex Pistols (yes, hell yes), the Germs...

Here's my big point: Since 1989, when MBV did Isn't Anything, there hasn't been any groundbreaking new sound. (Really, you could go back to JAMC's Psychocandy...but let's not get lost in the mire, eh) So, it stands to follow: records are either good or they are not good or they're some in-between and it doesn't have anything to do with their place in time. FM's Rumours was a 10.0 then and it's a 10.0 now.

Oh, but you have counter-examples!

Sure, I understand. Weezer, or... You loved Blink-182 in the '90s and have a soft spot for them. I get it. But now you realize how bad they suck and you can put that behind you now.

I feel your pain. I used to think this was awesome: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44pYL9-XOW0

*watches clip*

OK, bad example. That's still fantastic. But I think I have Rick Dee's Disco Duck 45 somewhere in my parents' garage to prove my point.

Little minor production differences: the 80s were glossy and now we prefer a more intimate sound. Doesn't matter.

If it's good it good. Regardless of when. That's all I'm saying.

DiScuss.