I don't know, maybe it's just me. But ever since the number has changed from 2000 to 2500, artists' rankings have either skyrocketed or plummeted. Either way, there are so many ridiculously low rankings for the 2005 list. It seems everyone is dipping below 2000. Hopefully, not all year-end lists have been factored in...

haha, I realize I used Metacritic, when I ment Acclaimed Music Forum. I go to both sites religiously, but oh well, mistakes happen.

It's been a poor year, imo.

Geezus, I made another careless typo. Ment equals meant for editors out there. 2005 was a fantastic year, a MAJOR improvement over last. The problem, I think is, too many year end lists are overly predictable. You see the same shit in nearly every top 10.

It takes a few years for most critics to put a new album into their best-of-all-time list. Therefore the estimated standard of a new year is generally a little low. However, around 2003 things were different, as some magazines published all-time lists including a lot of recent material. (The most extreme was NME who put "Elephant" in their all-time top 100 before the album was released!) Since 2003, most albums from this millennium have fallen down a bit. It has nothing to do with the 2500 extention, but another reason is of course all the jazz albums that have been added.