I'm old enough and have gotten used  enough to the industry's typical long mean time between artist's releases that that anticipation doesn't enter into it.

Usually, as in the case, say, of Cheap Trick, I'm just happy and hopeful a new one's coming out.  (If I'm not thinking, "Oh.  Are they still making records?  Neat."  Or, in the case of Blink 182, "Oh, Chr*st.  Are they makin' THAT record again?")

A band's last previous release and whatever warm fuzzies I have for it do tend to be a strong reference point and often a benchmark for my expectations.

I also spend weeks not thinking about this, for what that's worth.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Holmes Online" <bholmes_fm@msn.com>
To: audities@smoe.org
Sent: 8/24/09 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: The Shazam "Meteor"

>>It's just that it's not as 'blockbuster' as you might imagine, given the 
>>amount of time that they took between albums (and theoretically making 
>>this album).


Haven't heard it yet, so I can't comment on the music, but the above 
sentence raises an interesting question: Do you judge the music on its own 
merits, or does the length of time factor into your evaluation?

I wish I could honestly answer that it's always the former, but I'm not 
certain I always adhere.

Conversely, few compare pre-work times for a debut record, where an artist 
theoretically has their whole life (to that point) to write; why treat a 
later album that way? So much we don't know, anyway - even if a few years 
gap, was the whole thing written in the last six months? Or were some of 
those songs even hanging around a much *longer* time? (Think CT and The 
Latest).

Looking forward to hearing it LOUD,

b