there seems to be two reasons of thought around here: the current episodes (seasons 10+) are not as good as the early seasons (1-3), and vice versa. i think i speak for pretty much everyone when i say that seasons 5-8 (approximately) were the golden age (feel free to disagree, but that's not my main point ...)
to the people that think the early shows are worse than the recent shows: this comparison isn't really valid. when the simpsons premired, they didn't exactly have much money or even a precedent to follow. how many (successful) prime-time cartoons were there before OFF? 1? if that? how many people at the time expected the show to survive? so, naturally, characters are being defined, stories are tried out, and it's expected that certain things will work, others won't. as a result, these shows have less of a cookie-cutter feel to them.
yes, bart was the focus of the show at the time. and, considering the circumstances, it worked very well. the focus shifted to homer at the right time ... it didn't really need to happen any sooner or later than it did. certain stories did have morals to them, but, for the most part, they were well enough hidden that they didn't stand out.
when comparing episodes, therfore, give the older ones a handicap. it's *expected* that the newer shows will be better than the old ones ... if someone says, "the older shows weren't drawn as well, the characters weren't as funny, the stories weren't as interesting ... ," i for one still find these "unrefined" characters and plots better than the current situation, but even if *you* don't, it's still difficult to argue against the old episodes. the foundation has to lie somewhere.
besides, the characters on the older episodes had more of a human feel to them, even more than some of the golden age ones do.
-stoops
PS - people: when replying to a post, stick to the issues, for christ's sake. these ad hominen attacks are disgusting.