The 2000's, in my estimation, have been good years for new music by perennial classic rock artists. NEW and Egypt Station from McCartney, Springsteen's most recent Western Stars going back to The Rising. The last few (minus the Christmas record) from Bob Dylan, the final entries from Johnny Cash. Tom Petty's Hypnotic Eye...Even The Rolling Stones last two had some shining moments, lots of other classic artists have very good "new" albums... In an era when people are losing a sense of the album as an artistic entity, can we expect any of these albums to be revered in the same stature as the golden era albums from these artists? In some cases the new albums may contain music that may be better track-to-track. If we were to rate tracks individually, certainly we can make a case that Love & Theft has better tracks than the lesser tracks on Planet Waves or that Hypnotic Eye has a few glorious moments that put Southern Accents into clearer perspective. Or that, God forbid, Dominoes (from Egypt Station) is a better song than Manmunia (from Band On The Run). These older releases reflect an era when the album was a force and we eagerly anticipated each new record. In the case of Tom Petty, Wildflowers was his last "classic", IMO. And that one came out closer to the tail end of the album era. As time goes by will people look upon the works of these artists simply as a list of songs.. Or will we bundle these excellent newer albums into the same list including Revolver, Damn The Torpedoes, Born To Run and Blood On the Tracks? It's an interesting discussion. Looking for the perspective of those like-minded folks who still collect albums.