One thing worries me looking at the best of 2006 list... With the exception of the top two, every mention on the list has had previous mentions. Since they're almost all based only on metascore right now, it seems strange that something with as mediocre a score as Mogwai's Mr. Beast would even make it into the top 2500. It'll be amended by the end of the year, sure, but it seems strange that there's this safety net for typically good bands making okay albums and little acknowledgement of newcomers to the scene. Is this an intentional repercussion of the formula you use?
I have certainly no intention to include more veteran artists. My formula is based on
1. the metascore and
2. the number of critics who have rated an album
The weights of these two factors is based on an analysis of the metacritic info in comparison to end of year lists from 2000-2005.
I agree that the 2006 list looks weak in terms of new artists coming up, but I don't think this is a new phenomenon. A lot of the critics always have a preference to veterans and many new artists with little help from their record companies are not discovered until a couple of years later.
To deal with the latter problem, EOY lists are weighted much lower than lists compiled later. As an example, look at the 2003 list and compare Sufjan Stevens' "Michigan" album and Super Furry Animals' "Phantom Power". PP was included in many more EOY lists, but Michigan has been included in 4 best-of-the-decade lists and this is enough for it to be ranked above PP.
Ghostface Killah is a bit of a veteran too, he's been around for a while the the Wu Tang Clan etc. So are the Arctics the only debutartists in the list?
