The Old Acclaimed Music Forum
Go to the NEW FORUM
Comment
Matt Schroeder
What concerns me about the inclusion of a system that weights the lists is that, at least in my mind, the weighting implies that one list is more "valid" than another. Maybe I'm not looking at this the right way, and if so, hopefully someone can correct me.
Seriously, I was waiting for someone come back on this, but perhaps not everyone reads this thread. My standpoint is this: Acclaimed Music and sales charts both rank music from top to bottom, but from different angles (critical judgment and popularity). While the sales chart are hugely dependent on what's "available", the ideal situation for the critical judgment would be if every song or album would have - quality aside - the same chance to be judged. However, as it is inevitable for the critics and music industry workers that availability plays a role in the makings of their lists, I use a weighting factor to get a little bit closer to the ideal situation. Nevertheless, less reachable music will always be underestimated.
Something like VH1's list stands out because there is such a focus on mainstream, commercial, hit music, with the very rare non-hit tossed in. That's fine and dandy, but when it includes acts that are obvious critically challenged acts, then I definitely see no issue with something like that having less weight than another list.
How's the update coming along, Henrik? 
JR
How's the update coming along, Henrik? 
Henrik
Matt Schroeder
What concerns me about the inclusion of a system that weights the lists is that, at least in my mind, the weighting implies that one list is more "valid" than another. Maybe I'm not looking at this the right way, and if so, hopefully someone can correct me.
Seriously, I was waiting for someone come back on this, but perhaps not everyone reads this thread. My standpoint is this: Acclaimed Music and sales charts both rank music from top to bottom, but from different angles (critical judgment and popularity). While the sales chart are hugely dependent on what's "available", the ideal situation for the critical judgment would be if every song or album would have - quality aside - the same chance to be judged. However, as it is inevitable for the critics and music industry workers that availability plays a role in the makings of their lists, I use a weighting factor to get a little bit closer to the ideal situation. Nevertheless, less reachable music will always be underestimated.
The obvious difficulty in this is that there is no way to assess what critics have and have not heard. I'd say that there are definitely a number of indie "classics" that never sold much, but have been heard by nearly all critics. You'd be hard-pressed to find a critic these days who hasn't heard, say, "Tunnels" by Arcade Fire, despite how poorly it may have sold. And what about songs popular on radio that we're singles, like "Stairway to Heaven"?
Henrik
Matt Schroeder
What concerns me about the inclusion of a system that weights the lists is that, at least in my mind, the weighting implies that one list is more "valid" than another. Maybe I'm not looking at this the right way, and if so, hopefully someone can correct me.
Seriously, I was waiting for someone come back on this, but perhaps not everyone reads this thread. My standpoint is this: Acclaimed Music and sales charts both rank music from top to bottom, but from different angles (critical judgment and popularity). While the sales chart are hugely dependent on what's "available", the ideal situation for the critical judgment would be if every song or album would have - quality aside - the same chance to be judged. However, as it is inevitable for the critics and music industry workers that availability plays a role in the makings of their lists, I use a weighting factor to get a little bit closer to the ideal situation. Nevertheless, less reachable music will always be underestimated.
So could it be argued that this new weighting system is based more on how inclusive the list appears to be? Or put another way, a list that includes more "unknown" songs/albums would have a higher weight than a list that includes little to no "unknown" songs/albums? And if that's the case, what is the criteria for if something is "known" or "unknown"?
Basically, here's what's going through my mind... The predominant argument seems to be that VH1's lists are not an accurate representation of music as a whole because those lists are largely a reflection of what is popular on VH1. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of VH1; they seem to have a love affair with Cher's "Believe" that I don't share.
But what's to say that, for their list of the 100 Greatest Songs of the '00s, they truly did give EVERY song a fair shake and determined that Franz Ferdinand's "Take Me Out" (which is currently at #69 on AM, but was unlisted by VH1) was not as good a song as Colbie Caillat's "Bubbly" (which is currently unlisted here at AM, but is #71 according to VH1)? I guess what I'm trying to say is that just because a list doesn't include lesser-known songs doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't considered and then rejected as "not good enough".
If I'm being a pain in the ass, please say so and I'll shut up.
Matt Schroeder
Henrik
Matt Schroeder
What concerns me about the inclusion of a system that weights the lists is that, at least in my mind, the weighting implies that one list is more "valid" than another. Maybe I'm not looking at this the right way, and if so, hopefully someone can correct me.
Seriously, I was waiting for someone come back on this, but perhaps not everyone reads this thread. My standpoint is this: Acclaimed Music and sales charts both rank music from top to bottom, but from different angles (critical judgment and popularity). While the sales chart are hugely dependent on what's "available", the ideal situation for the critical judgment would be if every song or album would have - quality aside - the same chance to be judged. However, as it is inevitable for the critics and music industry workers that availability plays a role in the makings of their lists, I use a weighting factor to get a little bit closer to the ideal situation. Nevertheless, less reachable music will always be underestimated.
So could it be argued that this new weighting system is based more on how inclusive the list appears to be? Or put another way, a list that includes more "unknown" songs/albums would have a higher weight than a list that includes little to no "unknown" songs/albums? And if that's the case, what is the criteria for if something is "known" or "unknown"?
Basically, here's what's going through my mind... The predominant argument seems to be that VH1's lists are not an accurate representation of music as a whole because those lists are largely a reflection of what is popular on VH1. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of VH1; they seem to have a love affair with Cher's "Believe" that I don't share.
But what's to say that, for their list of the 100 Greatest Songs of the '00s, they truly did give EVERY song a fair shake and determined that Franz Ferdinand's "Take Me Out" (which is currently at #69 on AM, but was unlisted by VH1) was not as good a song as Colbie Caillat's "Bubbly" (which is currently unlisted here at AM, but is #71 according to VH1)? I guess what I'm trying to say is that just because a list doesn't include lesser-known songs doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't considered and then rejected as "not good enough".
If I'm being a pain in the ass, please say so and I'll shut up.
I agree. I think it's a slippery slope to make judgments about what songs/albums were considered for a list. I think that if anything, mainstream pop is actually underrepresented on this site, not overrepresented.
In a lot of cases, though, mainstream pop really isn't GREAT stuff. Being accessible and catchy doesn't necessarily make it good all the time. I can listen to a lot of stuff on the radio, whether during a workout or whatever, but I would not seek it out to listen to or purchase it. Certain mainstream acts have transcended just the mainstream pop genre on a regular basis, while others do so just with a single or two.
Henrik
I will use a method (that I will never reveal!)
Ooh- nice find, Henrik. Love 80s lists- and some great tracks on there.
Hopefully Slant publishes 80s lists next year.