While I understand that it's not an absolutely fantastic album (like all of Radiohead's other offerings), I don't understand why it doesn't appear on the top 3000, or even just bubbling under; I've seen it in several lists, including in the top 40 albums of 1993 on an NME list, and one of the best 200 of the past 25 years on a very recent Q Magazine list. The 3000th album on the list doesn't have as many listings, and they're not as high, so why isn't it included on the list? Thank you!

Maybe some of the lists you've seen are readers' lists, because Pablo Honey have been much more frequent in those. It really isn't included in many critics' lists.

Hi Henrik,

Dunno if this helps, but according to Wikipedia, it has been on some lists. I don't know enough about your process to be sure they are eligible, but as far as I can tell, none of these are readers' polls.

NME: Ranked #35 in top 50 of 1993.
Classic Rock: Unranked in Top 200 albums of the 90s.
Metal Hammer: Unranked in Top 20 albums of 1993.
Blender: #82 in "100 Albums You Must Own"
Amazon: #26th in the Editors' list for "The 100 Greatest Debut Albums of All Time".

It also got favorable reviews from Allmusic, NME, Q, Amazon, Record Collector, Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, and the BBC.

Also, "Lurgee" & "Blow Out" were in Q's "1010 Songs You Must Own".

I would also love to see Blur's Leisure get ranked. Like Pablo Honey, it is not brilliant, but it has good songs and is underrated due to the quality of the material that followed.

I also have another question, Henrik. It says in the Q&A section that 'best of's and other compilations aren't included on the list, which I generally agree with. However, 'Hatful Of Hollow' by The Smiths is included on the list, despite being a compilation of most of their early singles and b-sides, along with a John Peel session. While I think that such a compilation has a right to be included (especially considering its quality), it makes me wonder why 'Substance' by New Order, which is again not a 'best of' but a compilation of b-sides and singles, is omitted. Thanks again, and I see what you mean about reader lists, of which the Q list I read was indeed one, although then again, I think the lists Viguen supplied were probably pretty valid.

Yeah,I'd sometimes wondered about that,but it may have something to do with the fact that a couple of the tracks had appeared on their studio albums...

True, but albeit in very different forms... 'The Perfect Kiss' is almost twice as long on Substance, and 'Sub-Culture' is virtually unrecognisable (I personally prefer the version on Low-Life). But that argument doesn't hold anyway, because about a quarter of the tracks on Hatful of Hollow are also on The Smiths in alternate takes.

Yes,good point. Well,I guess it must come down to the critics lists - most critics must not have considered Substance a true album so never included it in their lists...

I thought that too, but it's 300 and something on Rolling Stones' Top 500 ever, which I assumed counted for quite a lot, but again, that might be a one-off or something.

Just because "Hatful of Hollow" combines live recordings with singles it's a compilation?

I try to stick to a rule that compilations are allowed if they consist of fairly recent material (i.e. recorded within the last 2-3 years) that's only been released on singles or EP's.

This applies to "Hatful of Hollow", but not Substance that kicks off with the original 1981 version of "Ceremony" if I'm not wrong.

Fair enough, that does make sense.

While we're on this topic, I wish your compilation rule would be adopted by The Cure. Japanese Whispers surely feels like an album to me, but it was ignored in the reissues because the band dubs it a compilation, despite the fact that every one of the songs dates from after Pornography.

Japanese Whispers is surely eligible, but the critics don't seem to like it.

Yeah, but I wonder if most critics view it as a compilation themselves and hence don't include it.