Put a Pin on the Map View my Forum Guestmap
Free Guestmaps by Bravenet.com

The Old Acclaimed Music Forum

Go to the NEW FORUM

Forum: Music, music, music...
Start a New Topic 
   Board|Threaded
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: Lists that don't meet the Acclaimed Music criteria

I think Time Magazine's Century issue should be included. It's the June, 8th, 1998 issue - "Artists and Entertainers of The Century".

It listed five rock songs. Only five. One for each decade of the fifties through the nineties. They are:

50s: "Roll Over, Beethoven" - Chuck Berry
60s: "My Generation" - The Who
70s: "Stayin' Alive" - The Bee Gees
80s: "Material Girl" - Madonna
90s: "Smells Like Teen Spirit" - Nirvana

Email  
Re: Lists that don't meet the Acclaimed Music criteria

Are the lists of nothing but Beatles songs included in determining the rankings? For example, "All You Need is Love" is only on two non-exclusive lists: The 7,500 Most Important Songs of 1944-2000 (2005) and Rolling Stone (USA) - The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time (2004). The other four lists are lists of nothing but Beatles songs.

By contrast, "Pictures of Lilly", for example, is on four non-exclusive lists: The 7,500 Most Important Songs of 1944-2000 (2005), New Musical Express (UK) - The Top 100 Singles of All Time (1976), Q (UK) - The 1001 Best Songs Ever (2003) and Spex (Germany) - The Best Singles of the Century (1999). None of those lists are lists of nothing but Who songs.

Yet, "All You Need is Love" is ranked at #1048 while "Pictures of Lilly" is ranked at #1473. This makes no sense to me. Can someone please explain the logic?

Email  
Re: Lists that don't meet the Acclaimed Music criteria

Are the lists of nothing but Beatles songs included in determining the rankings?
Yes

For example, "All You Need is Love" is only on two non-exclusive lists: The 7,500 Most Important Songs of 1944-2000 (2005) and Rolling Stone (USA) - The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time (2004). The other four lists are lists of nothing but Beatles songs.

By contrast, "Pictures of Lilly", for example, is on four non-exclusive lists: The 7,500 Most Important Songs of 1944-2000 (2005), New Musical Express (UK) - The Top 100 Singles of All Time (1976), Q (UK) - The 1001 Best Songs Ever (2003) and Spex (Germany) - The Best Singles of the Century (1999). None of those lists are lists of nothing but Who songs.

Yet, "All You Need is Love" is ranked at #1048 while "Pictures of Lilly" is ranked at #1473. This makes no sense to me. Can someone please explain the logic?


1. "All You Need Is Love" is included on Rolling Stone's 500 greatest songs, which has a high weight. "Pictures of Lily" is included on lists with lower weights, except for the NME list from 1976.

2. Based on not-Beatles-only lists alone, "Pictures of Lily" would be ahead of "All You Need Is Love", but "All You Need Is Love" has been ranked higher in the Beatles lists than most other Beatles songs with only two not-Beatles-only entries, and this moves the song up the AM list.

Other Beatles songs are found further down the AM list as they haven't been included in many Beatles-only lists. For example "Twist and Shout", which is at no. 1946 although it appears on three not-Beatles-only lists.

Re: Lists that don't meet the Acclaimed Music criteria

Huh, in that case, I have a 50 Best Rolling Stones Songs list from The New Book of Rock Lists, edited by Dave Marsh, and a 25 Best Who Songs list from Q Magazine. Would you like them?

Email  
Re: Lists that don't meet the Acclaimed Music criteria

why are lists of songs by the same artist counted? they can't be compared to songs by other artists at that point, so it seems odd.

Email  
Re: Lists that don't meet the Acclaimed Music criteria

I think it's very odd, myself. Adding lists of nothing but Beatles songs makes it seem like the Beatles are getting an unfair advantage. But if he thinks it's legitimate for the Beatles, then it should be legitimate for the Rolling Stones and The Who, too. I offered two lists from reputable published sources, but he has yet to acknowledge me.

Email  
Re: Lists that don't meet the Acclaimed Music criteria

Sorry Tim, I didn't see your previous reply.

I have had a discussion before about Dave Marsh's book of rock lists. There are a lot of lists in that book that could be included. In fact they are too many to deal with, and rather than including one or two lists from the book, I leave it out completely.

Also, I wrote further up in this thread (posted March 10, 2005):
A small update to the exclusion criteria:

* end of year lists from individual critics
* genre-specific lists from non-genre specific sources OR INDIVIDUAL CRITICS
* readers'/listeners' lists
* lists of artists
* lists of collection albums
* lists of classical music
* lists of jazz and world music (will be included in the future)


I think artist-specific lists should also fall under the genre-specific rule that I will not include individual critics lists. Although I will probably include an artist-specific list if someone writes a book entirely devoted to this matter.


Adding lists of nothing but Beatles songs makes it seem like the Beatles are getting an unfair advantage.
Nothing-but-Beatles lists only adjust the Beatles-songs' positions. Some move up and others move down. They do not give Beatles an advantage.

Re: Lists that don't meet the Acclaimed Music criteria

"Adding lists of nothing but Beatles songs makes it seem like the Beatles are getting an unfair advantage.
Nothing-but-Beatles lists only adjust the Beatles-songs' positions. Some move up and others move down. They do not give Beatles an advantage."

But still they get points don't they? It seems to me that older releases, especially popular ones will always stay on top because of artist specific lists and that a lot of the songs will always be acclaimed "just because". Does a new release have any chance of cracking the top 50? Maybe, since everyone puts out lists these days, but if the older music keeps showing up on those lists do new albums and songs really stand a chance of catching up? I guess there are a lot of 90's albums in the top 50 so maybe acclaim is gradual. But, why can't critics realize a great album when they hear it and realize the influence it will have? It shouldn't take 10 years to realize the brilliance of an album... but then again you get the Arctic Monkeys debut being ranked as one of the greatest albums of all time by some, so maybe 10 years is a deserved digestion time!

Email  
Re: Lists that don't meet the Acclaimed Music criteria

Hi Henrik -
Interesting list and I know that much time & effort goes into something like this.
I've had this thought of the most underrated songs of all time.
Here's a quick sample:
What Cha Gonna Do - Chaka Khan
Seven Years of Good Luck - Joe Sample
Real Thing - Bobby Caldwell
I Want You - Marvin Gaye
Never Gonna Give You Up - Jerry Butler
The Caves Of Altamira - Steely Dan
Since You've Been Gone - Aretha Franklin
Night and Day - Frank Sinatra
It Keeps You Runnin' - Doobie Brothers
Big Noise New York - Donald Fagen
If You Don't Want My Love - Robert John
Circle of One - Oleta Adams
Beggin' - 4 Seasons
Black Cow - Steely Dan
Yellow Moon - Neville Brothers
Giant Steps - John Coltrane
A Girl Like You - Rascals
Don't Do It - The Band (from Rock of Ages album)
Don't Keep Me Wonderin' - Allman Brothers
Please Let Me Wonder - Beach Boys
God Bless The Child - Blood, Sweat & Tears
Walk Away From Love- David Ruffin

Email  
New lists

I'm not quite sure where to post those, so I'm just gonna post them in here:

http://rateyourmusic.com/list/pauldrach/basis_diskothek_rock_und_pop

http://rateyourmusic.com/list/pauldrach/rororo_rock_lexikon

Re: Lists that don't meet the Acclaimed Music criteria

pauldrach, great books! Is the rororo list some kind of "most recommended" list? If so, I think both books can be included at AM.

Re: Lists that don't meet the Acclaimed Music criteria

Yes, it is a "most recommended" list.

Re: Lists that don't meet the Acclaimed Music criteria

Great! Thanks!

Re: Lists that don't meet the Acclaimed Music criteria

Quote: Henrik
Because of time limitations, I cannot include all critics lists in the world. I have to prioritise and therefore I have set up some rules. The following types of lists are not included in the calculation of Acclaimed Music's top 2000 albums and singles of all time.


Henrik,

I just discovered your site, in the process of researching a book, and it has been fabulously informative! Many thanks,

There is one list I've used for reference which I haven't seen mentioned, either in the official lists or this "don't meet criteria" forum, but which seems to me like it would be well worth using: The Email   Website
Re: Lists that don't meet the Acclaimed Music criteria

Quote: Henrik
Because of time limitations, I cannot include all critics lists in the world. I have to prioritise and therefore I have set up some rules. The following types of lists are not included in the calculation of Acclaimed Music's top 2000 albums and singles of all time.


Henrik,

I just discovered your site, in the process of researching a book, and it has been fabulously informative! Many thanks,

There is one list I've used for reference which I haven't seen mentioned, either in the official lists or this "don't meet criteria" forum, but which seems to me like it would be well worth using: The National Recording Registry of the Library of Congress.

Re: Lists that don't meet the Acclaimed Music criteria

Freddy, the first selections from 2002 are included, but I wasn't aware of the later selections. So thanks for noticing me!

Re: Lists that don't meet the Acclaimed Music criteria

What makes a someone a music critic? Do they have to write a book? For example, I just found this list http://www.squidoo.com/200songs
Is that a critic's list? He took the time to rank the songs.
Also, let's say rolling stone revisted their greatest songs list (not just add in songs like they did, but actually have new voters vote on a new list completly). Would you rank both lists of just the new one?

Re: Lists that don't meet the Acclaimed Music criteria

Hands down, this is one of the best music ranking sites I have ever come across. Keep up the superb work here at Acclaimed Music.

I have a question about an album list I recently discovered. I'm not sure if it meets your criteria. It is entitled, "1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die" - edited by Robert Dimery and published by Quintessence Editions Ltd. This album list currently draws from the 1955 - 2009 time-frame. You can see this diverse list for yourself at: http://1001beforeyoudie.com

Just click on view albums list and sort it by release date. Enjoy!

Re: Lists that don't meet the Acclaimed Music criteria

Ryan, this list is already included. I'm glad you like the site.

Re: Lists that don't meet the Acclaimed Music criteria

Thanks for the update. I had a feeling that you included it, but wasn't sure. If you ever need any help with anything on here, I would volunteer myself for this cause. Great stuff!

Re: Lists that don't meet the Acclaimed Music criteria

Ryan, perhaps you want to be the first true newcomer to play the "welcome to newcomers" game?

http://pub37.bravenet.com/forum/static/show.php?usernum=3172289350&frmid=10&msgid=1141000&cmd=show

Re: Lists that don't meet the Acclaimed Music criteria

I would love to play this game. Although, I have to say that I haven't even begun to officially rank my all-time favorite albums. I listen to music from every era and (nearly) every genre / sub-genre. Should I give it a go anyways? Or should I do my list from a specific year or genre? (:

Re: Lists that don't meet the Acclaimed Music criteria

Quote: Ryan
I would love to play this game. Although, I have to say that I haven't even begun to officially rank my all-time favorite albums. I listen to music from every era and (nearly) every genre / sub-genre. Should I give it a go anyways? Or should I do my list from a specific year or genre? (:
Whatever feels best for you.

Question...

Henrik- hope all is well. :)

Obviously reader/listener lists are not part of the site. What about lists that incorporate readers/listeners, but also with the input of editors and writers. I came across this Gibson.com 80s list. While it says "most importantly- readers"- which probably is to make readers feel "special"- you can compare the final list with the readers' top 25:

http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Features/top-songs-80s-0815-2011/

Doesn't look like reader input was that strong- I count 11 of the readers' top 25 that ended up in the top 50 (with only four songs appearing in both top 20 lists). But, I'll leave it to your further examination. :)

And, yes, I obviously think it's very cool that a guitar-oriented company/site would have two Madonna songs in a top 50.

Re: Question...

Quote: JR
Henrik- hope all is well. :)

Obviously reader/listener lists are not part of the site. What about lists that incorporate readers/listeners, but also with the input of editors and writers. I came across this Gibson.com 80s list. While it says "most importantly- readers"- which probably is to make readers feel "special"- you can compare the final list with the readers' top 25:

http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/Features/top-songs-80s-0815-2011/

Doesn't look like reader input was that strong- I count 11 of the readers' top 25 that ended up in the top 50 (with only four songs appearing in both top 20 lists). But, I'll leave it to your further examination. :)

And, yes, I obviously think it's very cool that a guitar-oriented company/site would have two Madonna songs in a top 50.
I don't think I have ever included a list before where they state that the readers poll was reflected in the overall list, so I think I will have to deem this one ineligible. Sorry, JR.

Re: Lists that don't meet the Acclaimed Music criteria

How about the VH1 decade lists such as the 2000's as provided at http://www.gossipcop.com/vh1-100-greatest-songs-2000s-full-list-complete-rankings/

Re: Lists that don't meet the Acclaimed Music criteria

Quote: Henry
How about the VH1 decade lists such as the 2000's as provided at http://www.gossipcop.com/vh1-100-greatest-songs-2000s-full-list-complete-rankings/
I really hope that list isn't eligible (for obvious reasons). I managed to watch a little of it yesterday (and I ended up heckling the commentators on the TV), and a lot fo the commentators (who I think were also the voters) were non-critics like people from Jersey Shore, Mob Wives and comedians.

Re: Lists that don't meet the Acclaimed Music criteria

How about the following lists from Rolling Stone Magazine for 2011:

Top 50 songs:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/50-best-singles-of-2011-20111207?utm_source=dailynewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

and

Top 50 albums
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/50-best-albums-of-2011-20111207?utm_source=dailynewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

Re: Lists that don't meet the Acclaimed Music criteria

Can this list be used? I see that Christgau's best of the 70s and 80s have been used...

http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/list/rs00.php