Thanks JR!

Sorry for that mistake-The Swell Season seem to be not from Northern Ireland, but from Ireland in general.

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"?

"Stairway to Heaven" was never released as a commercial single when it was out, though, and never appeared on a music chart (at least in the USA). :)

I just think that in the case of something like the Grammys, its methods of of coming up with nominations in the major categories has been VERY geared toward the commercial and popular, safe, middle-of-the-road choices (especially leading up to the late 90s and even past that). And the VH1 list obviously is very hits-driven- the majority of critics' lists are not. many feature tracks that were big hits, but a lot of times it has as many, if not more, tracks that were not big hits on the charts.

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.

Oy. What I meant songs that are popular with radio but weren't singles.

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.

Moonbeam, about mainstream pop being underrated, I just like to point out that it seems like you are in a minority here as our forum polls always contain less mainstream music.

Grammy voting has more to do, in the pre-nomination phase, with what the record industry decides to be on the list. For the pre-nom ballot released to voters, Album of the Year had around 900 choices, of which you're allowed to select 5. To even get on that ballot, you need someone shilling for you at the Grammy board (NARAS,) and that usually falls to the job of the record label. So it helps to be on a Big Four in regards to that, unless you somehow made it big on the charts without it.

That's probably true. In all honesty, I dislike a vast majority of mainstream music from say 1991-2011, but I recognize that it is often too easily dismissed by critics simply because of its popularity.

I agree that the VH1 list is filled with some horrendously bad music, but the inclusion of so many big hits is certainly an exception rather than a rule.

I'm not intending to make it a big issue! Just thought I'd voice my opinion and say that this site is fantastic as it is without a weighting system. I'm not intending to create a big fuss and I apologize if I come off that way.

I'm so excited about this update! My November is shaping up to be one giant kick in the face, and the first song update since 2008 will definitely be a bright spot for me!

How is the anti-commercial factor determined, if I may ask? I'm assuming it's not a judgment call.

Ah, right. I was just thinking that it might answer some of the questions and clear up the matter a little if we had a general idea of how it is determined.

That said, I'm all for this. It'll just make the rare gems move up the lists presumably, which is welcome.

My feeling about mainstream pop is:

-Some of the songs coming out are fantastic, but the rest of the album is usually light filler.

-Some of the songs would be fantastic if they were less electro-stuttery and computerized. There are some pop songs I hate which sounded fantastic on The Voice.

So in summation, the problem with mainstream pop isn't the songwriting, it's the production paradigm of finding a pretty face and sterilizing in production rather than just finding talented singers and letting them sing.

Except for adult contemporary. The problem there is also the songwriting and a general contempt for the intelligence of the audience.

I found one more list that I will include. This is a good one.

http://onethirtybpm.com/features/the-top-100-tracks-of-the-1980s/

Ooh- nice find, Henrik. Love 80s lists- and some great tracks on there.

Hopefully Slant publishes 80s lists next year.