every band always says the new album they've got coming out is the best thing they've ever recorded. it's always the most diverse, or the most representative of their career and music stylings as a whole, whether it's their second or 22nd release. i mean, who's going to say "well, we think the new one is pretty decent, it's not as good as our last few though"? one, that's not going to make people want to buy it, and two unless it's 100% about the money for said band, they're not going to want to put out something they don't feel tops previous efforts because how is that going to be artistically satisfying? pretty sure for their own sake of considering themselves musically releveant, whether it's rem, shuttlecock, or any band, they have to think this (or convince themselves of this fact initially, even if the album comes out and is panned by critics and fans alike and they backpeddle on it in the months to follow, or years later look back in interviews when they're pushing another "best album we've ever recorded" and call it "not their best work" or find some other excuse to write it off as something of a mistake). i hate articles like that because they're all hype and very little substance, nothing we haven't already read in other articles (as far as we already knew eddie vedder, patti smith, and peaches are guest-ing it up. minus the peaches part that is pretty fuckin' cool). call me cynical. i am, however, still pretty psyched about this thing.