Is it easier for new artists to make the top of your list, as opposed to artists that have already had an established career that you've followed?

Because the new artist's album you just have to compare to other albums released that year, whereas someone like Belle And Sebastian or Beck are not only being compared with other 2006 releases, but with everything else they've released as well.


I listened to the B&S disc this morning for the first time in a few months and I enjoy it, but I don't like it as much as Tigermilk or DCW. And I'm afraid that's hurting it. I wonder, if it was the only album I heard from the band, would I have ranked it higher?

I'd say more new artists will be in my top 20 this year as opposed to older artists because a lot of their albums have been disappointing.

New Artists definitely garner more attention from me. Aren't we all looking for the next big thing? We are indie snobs after all.

Like the Dylan, Cash, Nelson, Hitchcock, Fagen and Butler albums, yeah.

Do those albums merit best of year consideration in your opinion? If so, great, I just don't see it.

I just mentioned those veterans there to get your goat, but, yes, I do think those albums are better than a lot of the young fart albums out there this year.

There's plenty of non-veteran stuff I like, too, but very often the "next big thing" is really just "not bad and kind of fun." Doesn't rise to "best-of" for me.

But I gravitate toward Liars and Frog Eyes types of new acts, not Strokes kind of new acts, not that there's anything wrong with the Strokes.

np: Kris Kristofferson :: This Old Road

Certain artists for me - this year Six Organs, Bardo Pond, Major Stars - earn an automatic shot at the Top 10, but really need to deserve any further distinction. Whereas a band like Brightblack Morning Light, which totally blindsided me, can secure itself a place up there just by virtue of how it says. It's a more natural win.

Looking at my in-progress list, I've got quite a few "old" artists (Neil Young, Ronnie Spector, Jerry Lee Lewis, Johnny Cash, Solomon Burke, Willie Nelson).

My top twenty will have its share of old artists and I don't think I unfairly judge older artists compared to newer ones once I decide to give them a listen. However, I like to listen to a variety of artists and styles so I find that even for my favorite artists I tend to return to the same 5-10 albums. Thus, I will often not bother to buy a new album from a long time favorite (eg Bob Dylan, Neil Young, Van Morrison) based on the suspicion that it would not fall into my personal top ten for that artist and thus wouldn't get alot of future spins from me once their newness attraction wears off. Those albums could very well be among the best of the year on objective grounds but if I don't think they'll have legs for me beyond this year, I'm not going to make hearing them a priority.

i'm digging older artists like the animals.

Elvis, too.

I'd say 7 or 8 in my top ten have either had previous albums or been in other bands before (ie. Eric Bachmann).

I honestly don't care. Old favorite or new, it's an even playing field with me - all that matters is that I liked what they put out a lot. I do my best not to hold previous releases against new releases so everything gets a shot at being appreciated.

it's more likely that artists i'm familiar with make my favorites of the year than not. josh ritter's "the animal years" (first album i heard from him) is an exception case.

I think I have a bias toward older artists simply because I'm more likely to buy their records if I liked their prior material. Debuts require a lot more of endorsement/hype for me to shell out the bones.

Interesting topic.
And Sketch makes an excellent point, above.

Also, the familiarity of an artist's sound allows for more of an immediate affinity for their new record, even if the sound is a bit of a departure (like with B&S this year).

There are artists that are new, and even though they don't have a back catalog, they still are being compared to comparable material of the past (e.g. RJD2's Deadringer was described the album Moby should've made after Play, or Wolfmother = Sabbath Jr., etc). New artists might have a little bit of an edge, but in a community such as this one, where there are people with such diverse tastes, even a new artist can be looked at through a "been there, done that" lens... Which is why artists who blindside you with something totally new seem to secure a top spot pretty handily.

+ "old" artists I was unfamiliar with who have reissued stuff= very high on my list, (e.g. Arthur Russell).

- "old" artists I loved in the past who released new albums this year = low on my list because most of them have been very dissapointing to me, (e.g. um... Stereolab, Ariel Pink, Morrissey, Neko Case, sadly).

+ new artists (or newly-discovered artists with new albums) = high on my list

yeah, the oldies are about neck-in-neck with the new ones for me.

I don't consider B&S or Beck to be old artists.

Good topic... and yes, absolutely, for me half of the kick of listening to "pop" music...whether it's alt rock, indie, ambient, or other genres ...is to find the New. Pop music is inclined to have a shelf life... and the art of it is to construct new sounds from "influences." The other half, for me, is to monitor the zeitgeist.

Dylan probably released the most "important" pop record of the year... and it didn't even make my top ten (yet).

"Maike it new." Ezra Pound

word.

When it comes to what I buy, older artists get the benefit of the doubt.

When it comes to lists, newer artists may do better because of the reasons mentioned above. If At War with the Mystics had been made by some band I'd never heard of, it might be edging into my top 20. Even with a lot of heavy-handed, clumsy lyrics, some proggy meanderings, and moments of questionable production, it's still a pretty unique and mostly pretty fun record. I just can't help thinking of it as a disappointment and another step down from their previous heights. And that new Yo La Tengo is damn good, but it's not a top 10 for me because they've done better before, and it's more familiar than it is exciting.

Still, if the Flaming Lips had made an album as good as Grizzly Bear's Yellow House - something they're more than capable of - I'm sure I'd appreciate it accordingly. And if more of that YLT album was like the final track, the opener, and a few other moments, it'd be an undeniable best album contender.

You know, on the first few listens it was like, yep, YLT, I know this .. good, but expected... But this has been one of the biggest "growers" of the year... could wnd up top five for me. And the reaction to it, how one hears it, is exactly what this thread is about.