No brackets today—there are still a couple of days left to vote on the last four second-round brackets, and the sweet 16 will be up early next week.

I’ve got something different for you today…from an earlier thread, you may be aware that my next crazy idea is:

AM Survivor.

In this friendly little bloodbath (my loose translation of nicolas’ “jeu de massacre”), we’ll start with 100 acclaimed artists and gradually vote them “off the island” until we’ve got a winner.

How do we decide which artists are on our theoretical island? Well, naturally, Henrik’s 100 most acclaimed artists are the starting point. However, thanks to a suggestion by Loophole, the first stage of the process will give everyone a chance to get a few of their favorites into the mix.

We’re going to knock five of the top 100 artists out of the running before we even start, and replace them with five artists ranked between #101 and #200. Besides the attraction of being able to “personalize” this game a bit, it’ll also be a good way to see if there are any kinks that need to be ironed out (as well as for me to figure out if enough people are actually interested to make it worthwhile).

This “pre-game” round will be named (for so it is, in more than one sense) the Loophole Round. If you want to join in, here’s what you do: take your five LEAST favorite artists from the top 100, and rank them from least-favorite (5 points) to fifth-least-favorite (1 point). 5-4-3-2-1. The five artists with the highest point totals go bye-bye.

ALSO, you name your five FAVORITE artists from #101-200, and rank them from #1 (5 points) to #5 (1 point). In this case, the five artists with the highest point totals are “on the island,” and will be part of AM Survivor. You have to have both your “outs” and your “ins” on your ballot for your vote to count.

Also, since I am Evil schleuse and I do things the way I do things, you need to explain why you’re voting artists off/on the island.

Now, let me strongly emphasize one thing: DON’T VOTE YET. Voting on the Loophole round will officially open one week from today (November 9). But, since this is a huge field and I think everyone (me, certainly) will need some time to think about their choices, I’m giving y’all the top 100 and the next 100 to ponder for the next seven days (I know you could look this up yourself, but I think alphabetical order is much more democratic).

So, here are your contestants.

The top 100 (vote five out):

AC/DC, The Band, The Beach Boys, Beastie Boys, The Beatles, Beck, Captain Beefheart and His Magic Band, Chuck Berry, Björk, Black Sabbath, Blondie, Blur, David Bowie, James Brown, The Byrds, Johnny Cash, Nick Cave, Ray Charles, The Clash, Leonard Cohen, John Coltrane, Elvis Costello, Creedence Clearwater Revival, The Cure, Miles Davis, The Doors, Nick Drake, Bob Dylan, The Eagles, Missy Misdemeanor Elliott, Eminem, Brian Eno, Fleetwood Mac, Aretha Franklin, Marvin Gaye, Grateful Dead, Al Green, Guns N’ Roses, PJ Harvey, Jimi Hendrix, Buddy Holly & the Crickets, Michael Jackson, The Jam, Elton John, Joy Division, The Kinks, Kraftwerk, Led Zeppelin, John Lennon, Little Richard, Madonna, Bob Marley and the Wailers, Massive Attack, Metallica, Joni Mitchell, Van Morrison, New Order, Nirvana, Oasis, OutKast, Parliament/Funkadelic, Pavement, Pet Shop Boys, Pink Floyd, Pixies, The Police, Elvis Presley, Primal Scream, Prince, Public Enemy, Pulp, Radiohead, Ramones, Otis Redding, Lou Reed, R.E.M., The Rolling Stones, Roxy Music, Run-D.M.C., Sex Pistols, Paul Simon, Simon and Garfunkel, Frank Sinatra, Sly and the Family Stone, Patti Smith, The Smiths, Sonic Youth, Bruce Springsteen, Steely Dan, The Stooges, Talking Heads, T. Rex, U2, The Velvet Underground, Tom Waits, The White Stripes, The Who, Stevie Wonder, Neil Young, Frank Zappa/The Mothers of Invention.

101-200 (vote five in):
Aerosmith, The Allman Brothers Band, Basement Jaxx, The Bee Gees, Belle and Sebastian, Big Star, Jackson Browne, Tim Buckley, Kate Bush, Can, The Chemical Brothers, Chic, Jimmy Cliff, Coldplay, Ornette Coleman, Sam Cooke, Cream, Crosby Stills Nash (& Young), Daft Punk, Deep Purple, De La Soul, Depeche Mode, Derek and the Dominos, Bo Diddley, Dr. Dre, Echo and the Bunnymen, Duke Ellington, Eric. B & Rakim, The Everly Brothers, Ella Fitzgerald, The Flaming Lips, The Four Tops, Franz Ferdinand, Peter Gabriel, Grandmaster Flash, Happy Mondays, Herbie Hancock, Hüsker Dü, Jay-Z, Jefferson Airplane, The Jesus and Mary Chain, Janis Joplin/Big Brother and the Holding Company, Carole King, King Crimson, Jerry Lee Lewis, Love, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Manic Street Preachers, Curtis Mayfield, Charles Mingus, Thelonious Monk, Morrissey, Motörhead, My Bloody Valentine, Randy Newman, Nico, Nine Inch Nails, N.W.A, Roy Orbison, Pearl Jam, Tom Petty, Iggy Pop, Portishead, Pretenders, The Prodigy, Public Image Ltd., Queen, Queens of the Stone Age, Red Hot Chili Peppers, The Replacements, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, Sonny Rollins, Santana, The Smashing Pumpkins, Elliott Smith, The Specials, Dusty Springfield, Sufjan Stevens, Rod Stewart, The Stone Roses, The Streets, The Strokes, Suede, The Supremes, Television, The Temptations, A Tribe Called Quest, TV on the Radio, Underworld, Van Halen, The Verve, Muddy Waters, Weezer, Kanye West, Wilco, Hank Williams, Lucinda Williams, Wire, XTC, Yo La Tengo.

If anyone has any suggestions or questions, please let me know! This is a work in progress, and although I think I’ve got this set up right, I’d welcome any input.

Sweet. 5 points for the Beatles! Nah, just kidding. A difficult exercise indeed.

OK - the first part shouldn't be too hard - some real weak ones in that top 100 - but picking 5 from that second list will be hard choices...

Problem is, which are the 5 weakest ones though.

I think there's 2 obvious choices for weakest - surely everyone will have those 2(MME and PSB)

I'd be voting to KEEP Missy and Pet Shop Boys for a LONG time! I imagine my votes will not line up with the majority here.

I don't know about a long time but I don't think I'll be voting either off right off the bat.

my list is ready !
To my mind their are 2 bands which are highly ranked only thanks to an totally overrated album, so the beginning of the list has been easy...
For the 5 I'd like to save... well, I've let my heart talk ^^

Moonbeam -

I'm with you. While I would not keep Missy and Pet Shop Boys a very long time, there are a number of other artists that I will unfortunately be attempting vote out long after those two more worthy candidates are off the island.

This is going to be a long ramble. Sorry about that, but there’s an issue I want to address before the Loophole Round starts on Friday. Here’s my biggest concern heading into it:

What happens if one of the top-ranked artists gets booted?

See, I don’t really know how this is going to go. In bracketology, choices are limited; if you’re faced with a bracket you don’t like, well, you can’t cast a write-in vote for the Pixies’ “Gigantic,” or something. But with a field as large as the one for AM Survivor (at least at the beginning), individual voters have a lot more latitude.

Don’t get me wrong—that’s a good thing. I want Survivor to be, not just a competition, but a way for us to have many wide-ranging discussions about the artists in it. If we all voted in lockstep, it would be really boring…but I’m confident that won’t happen.

The problem is that, even though too much consensus is boring, too little consensus could lead to some skewed results.

To take the obvious example: the Beatles. I don’t think it’s any great mystery that they’re the presumptive favorite to be the last survivor—more than “Like a Rolling Stone” in song bracketology, MUCH more than Pet Sounds would be if we were to have album bracketology.

And yet, there are people who don’t like them…not to call them out, but Neoptolemos, Slush and Moonbeam have all made it clear how they feel about the fab four. There may be others. And of course, that’s their right, and if those guys don’t like ‘em, they shouldn’t pretend to; in fact, I admire their courage in staking out an unpopular position. I mean, I’ve thundered loudly that I can’t stand Led Zeppelin, but the Beatles? That takes guts.

(Don’t worry, Zeppelin fans, I won’t be voting them out for a while.)

Now, here’s the thing: what if one or two voters puts the Beatles (or Led Zeppelin, or Bob Dylan…) on their “vote-out” list in the Loophole Round? Well, if the other voters mostly cast votes for a group of five to eight other artists, it’ll be a wash. But if I vote out five artists and Midaso votes out five DIFFERENT artists and John and LonesomePanda and Schwah, etc., all vote out slates of five that nobody else picks, then there would be a real possibility that a highly ranked artist—the Beatles or somebody else—could be eliminated with 6 or 7 points.

Let me be clear: I’m NOT trying to tell anyone how to vote. If you want to put the Beatles or the Stones or Bowie or Prince or U2 on your list, well, I have to respect (if not agree with) your choice.

But I feel that for many of us, if a high-ranked (let’s say top 10 or 20) artist is eliminated this early in favor of Depeche Mode or somebody, the entire project would be diminished. I mean, I like upsets. I’m hoping for upsets. But an upset is one thing; replacing Bob Dylan with the Red Hot Chili Peppers is a whole ‘nuther story.

I can’t think of a good solution. We could have a minimum point total for elimination, but then, five artists might not reach that threshold (and, again, I don’t know what the point totals are going to look like). We could let each voter pick one artist to “protect” from elimination, but if five voters put Missy Elliott first and one voter (hi, Moonbeam) protects her, it could get…unpleasant. Or I could rule that the top 20 artists cannot be eliminated in the Loophole Round, but that kind of arbitrary diktat is distasteful to me. Like I said, I can’t think of a good solution, and to be honest, I’m not sure it would be appropriate to implement one. My democratic soul just wants to count the votes and let the chips fall.

Of course, it’s possible that I’m worrying over nothing. I tell myself that enough people will vote to prevent a shocking elimination; I tell myself that those who dislike the Beatles are probably even less fond of other, lesser artists on the list. I hope so, anyway.

Any thoughts?

I wouldn't worry too much about The Beatles being voted out. Even though I don't like most of their output, I can still appreciate them and I even love some of their songs. For me they won't even be close to the 5 I'll be voting out.

I say we just see how it goes. If Bob Dylan gets voted off, so be it.. that's the game. Not to say I won't be disappointed to see him go, but from what I've seen from Survivor on TV (they don't show it here) it's not always the strongest that wins.

How about a new Loophole round when we're down at 50 artists? (Perhaps at 25 artists as well.)

What I mean is that when 50 artists have been voted out we could have a new Loophole round, where 5 artists previously voted out of the main game would be voted back in the game, replacing 5 artists in the main game.

The fact that we’re even discussing the possibility of a top artist (ie. top 10, or even top 20) getting voted out in the Loophole Round is really frustrating to me. Even though I know it’s a possibility, it speaks volumes about the types of whims that certain people of this forum seem to embrace with what I’m sure is a smug self-satisfaction. And it’s these whims that could ruin a game like AM Survivor for everybody else.

Yes, everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but I can’t conceive of any legitimate reason why anyone would choose The Beatles (for example) as their top artist to vote out. Like schleuse remarked in the Reorder The Top 20 Acclaimed Artists thread, it’s important to “recognize a distinction between your personal taste and your critical awareness.” In other words, you may hate the Beatles (arrrggh), but any respectable music fan should be able to think critically and analytically about the music they listen to, enough so that one’s appreciation of a certain artist/band’s contributions to music and culture can be distinguished (or considered, for at least a few moments, apart from) their own subjective feelings.

If it feels like I’m speaking to you, Moonbeam, then maybe I am. But when someone re-orders their Top 20 Acclaimed Artists and ranks the Beatles last, it can only be attributed to the following:

1. A hatred of the Beatles’ music (and if that’s the case, see above)
2. A ignorance or lack of knowledge about the numerous ways and many aspects the band contributed to popular music
3. Just an attempt at being different (ie. “standing out from the crowd”)

Prince may not be my favorite artist (in fact, I only like a handful of his songs, and listening to his albums is not my idea of a good time), however, I can appreciate his extreme talents as a songwriter, arranger, producer and musician, not to mention, his contribution to pop music. As a fan, it’s undisputable that you recognize these as well, but I just wish that you would extend the same towards the Beatles.

I agree with Neoptolemos. Here's my opinion:

This is supposed to be a knockout system, with lots of discussions and opinions. If we start protecting the upper X artists, this is going to be a long, and boring process. With the current planning, this game will take on till summer next year, so it needs to keep momentum and stay interesting. If up front we know that the top 10 will survive until the last, let's say month, why bother the whole process and not start with the top 20 directly?

If an artist gets knocked out early, it's not the end of the world. Artists will 'survive' based on the voters' common interest, not based on the AM ranking.

Let me finish in a constructive way and say, that I like Henrik's idea of re-entries. But this should stay very limited, like e.g. one re-entry when we're at 50 artists and one re-entry at 20 artists.

Anthony's and my post just crossed each other.

I read your post to quickly, schleuse, but I think I see your worry now. And I have to come back to what I wrote and correct myself:

"Artists will 'survive' based on the voters' common interest, not based on the AM ranking." With the current voting system, this common interest is not rewarded at all. A few voters who dislike an artist can get their way, because other voters, who like the same artist, have no way to protect their beloved ones. Hmmm, what about the suggestion from Schwah (see post "Bracketology, what's next?", Oct 10th) to work with both voting off and on (++ and --)? In some kind of fashion, which will make everybody happy

It's just a friendly game among a limited number of people. Because it is among a limited number of people, there will be anomalies that you wouldn't see in, say, the big Acclaimed Music list that has a much wider sample. I wouldn't get too worked up about it if the Beatles got knocked out early, even if it is an objective truth that they are the proper winner. If the aim is to generate discussion and fun... the early withdrawal of the Beatles would certainly do the trick!

I raised the issue of strategic voting when the survivor game first got broached. Schleuse indicated that he wants this to be based entirely on the merits, and I respect that and agree that (based on this game format) strategic voting is not appropriate. I have already been on record that I find the Beach Boys to be vastly overrated, but they are certainly not getting voted out by me any time soon. If everyone follows suit, the Beatles will not get kicked out in the loophole round, but they could go out sooner than others would like... and that would be fine. If you don't like it, recruit your music nerd friends to get on to the forums and play along.

And my post crossed yours Dr. Dre.

The (++) (--) system that I had broached earlier is a lot of fun, but it's a different type of game than the one that schleuse has in mind. It encourages strategic voting and is best when you have two blocs squaring off, adding and subtracting points as they see fit. That may be a fun game to organize after this survivor game, but I think we should go forward with schleuse's format. If there are three people who think the Beatles are worse than 25 other artists, and the rest of us think Van Morrison is worse than only 15 other artists, the Beatles will go out before Van Morrison. And as far as I'm concerned, that's the game, and that's OK.

Random tidbits:

- Schwah, I agree that the ++/-- system would be appropriate if we were going to divide into blocs, but I think (for the very reasons stated above), that could get seriously nasty. As you said, this really should be a friendly game; I don’t want us to split into warring factions…after all, despite the format, this isn’t actually televised; nobody’s tuning in to watch us act bitchy toward each other. (Which is another way of saying: play nice. Most of your favorites are going to be eliminated eventually—try not to take it personally.)

- I think future Loophole rounds at the halfway and three-quarters points would really only prolong the agony for the fans of whichever artists went from Dead, to Not Quite Dead, to Dead Again. I don’t actually watch much reality TV (although I was hooked on Top Chef this year; yes, I’m a foodie), but the fundamental rule seems to be that once you’re gone, you’re gone.

- Neoptolemos, thanks for reminding me of the reality-TV precedent. The game isn’t called “The Best Artist”; it’s called Survivor. If Beatle-haters knock out the fab four and Dylan-haters knock out Hibbing’s favorite son and we end up with a winner that most people like but few people really love (The Who, let’s say), maybe that’s in the nature of it. I hope that’s not the case; I still hope, and expect, that most of the highest-rated artists will survive deep into the game. But even if the Beatles don’t win, let’s face it, they’re already immortals; nothing we do will change that.

- On an unrelated matter, I’m imposing a rule on myself for my own voting—before I vote any artist out, I’m going to make myself listen to (at least) their six most acclaimed songs (or fewer if they don’t have that many). There are, I’m ashamed to say, three or four artists in the top 100 I’ve never heard—Nick Drake, for one. There are many more I haven’t really listened to in detail for a long time. I’m gonna give everyone a fair hearing…I would be too uncomfortable eliminating artists based only on reputation, or on my own ignorance. Obviously, I’m not going to listen to every artist’s top tracks between now and Friday…I plan to maintain throughout the game a pool of about 12-15 prospective victims.

(My wife, when she saw our Recently Purchased folder on iTunes the other day, asked me, “Why are you buying music by bands you hate?” She gave up about 30 seconds into my explanation…)

Schleuse - you might be able to add me to the club of Beatle-haters. Well,not a hater - I just think they are very very overrated - especially in the albums. Revolver is easily their best album and most of their albums really disappointed me,especially Sgt. Peppers
And I think if those big name artists get voted out then that's too bad - top tennis players sometimes get upset in the first couple of rounds of a grand slam - they're out

Yes Midaso, but at least those tennis players are given a chance to at least compete! Instead of someone arbitrarily deciding prior to the tournament starting "No Roger, you can't play in this US Open. Sorry."

I just hope that people are honest with themselves when they do these things. Positioning makes the whole event kind of worthless if we're not getting a true representation of what we like and dislike.

How is this competition going to work anyways? Do we just vote off a different artist every week? I hope it's not that straightforward

Wow, you guys just sucked the fun out of it.

I already seem to be the subject of hostility (that impostor on the Björk thread, for instance) for my opinions, and that is unfortunate. As I have grown up, I have found that I bond with people more because I appreciate what they see in the music they love, not necessarily in the music I love. Lots of Prince fans leave me cold, whereas someone like damosuzuki, who often disagrees with me, gives me goose bumps with the way he writes sometimes. The reason I frequent this website isn't because I share the opinions of all of you here. We all come to this site as intensely passionate music fans, and I have a lot of respect for all of you because of the knowledge you impart and the great love of music that is apparent in your posts. I appreciate that differences in opinion can ignite lots of emotion. However, it seems that the respect that Anthony very eloquently argued that the Beatles deserve isn't necessarily being extended to the posters here. I am sensing that my input isn't necessarily welcome by some people here, at least in this proposed Survivor game. I understand that my opinions are more polarizing than most- I'm sure that the song I elect number 1 in the upcoming poll will be lucky to receive another vote from anyone else. The idealist in me clings to the belief that this shouldn't matter, even if this isn't the case. And if it isn't, I'll refrain from participating.

jonmarck, to quote myself:

We vote off
-four acts a week until we’re down to a top 40, then
-three acts a week until we’re down to a top 25, then
-two acts a week until we’re down to 11, then
-one act a week until we’re down to the last survivor.

That's the plan, anyhow, and that's after the Loophole round.

I guess that is pretty "straightforward," but my hope is that the sizzle on this steak will come from our comments and discussions about the artists' styles, merits, flaws, etc. I thought about trying to come up with specific "challenges" with different criteria like they have on reality shows; we could focus on artists' politics one week, drumming the next, album cover art the next, concerts the next, ability to hold one's liquor the next, and so on. That might be fun, but frankly I'd like to keep it simple, at least until we've got any bugs worked out. I remain open to suggestions...

Moonbeam:

The last thing I want is for you to feel unwelcome. I have no desire to attack your opinions, many of which I share. Also, I probably should not have called you out by name; I apologize. (I probably should have just used myself and my churning hatred of Robert Plant as my example.)

Anyhow, please don't feel singled out. I hope you'll join in, and that you'll have fun.

Come on Moonbeam, you have to participate! I can't get the Beatles out without you.

Seriously though, Anthony, your comment towards Moonbeam is quite lame. If he doesn't like any of the songs by The Beatles, that's his right. If he wants to rank it last, that's once again his right.
I think that if I honestly rearranged that top 20 list purely based on my feelings the Beatles would drop even drop a few spots, perhaps even into the last 3. However, I can appreciate their innovation and ranked them a little higher because of that.

Felt the urge to comment as well, but to just summarize what could become a long moral preach, my slogan would be:

Less of: pinpointing and throwing mud to each other.

More of: music focused opinions and discussions.

Well, schleuse, you're surely getting us all warmed up. So, let the fun begin, with hopefully as many participants as possible!

My English seems to get worse: 'throwing mud at each other' is probably the correct way to say/write it.

Wait a minute, Neo. Do you mean that all this time I’ve been making educated opinions for nothing? Why didn’t you say something before?! Gosh, if I don’t have to explain myself, then I won’t waste the time.

In that vein, here’s some opinion:

- Bob Dylan is a horrible songwriter.
- Miles Davis was the worst trumpet player to ever pick one up.
- The greatest pop album of all time is Aaron Carter’s self-titled disc (no, wait, that might be Limp Bizkit – Chocolate Starfish. Now THAT was an album!)
- Beethoven was the worst composer to ever live.

Wow, that feels so much better. Of course, since these are my opinions, they’re right, and nobody has the right to question me about them. This forum rocks!

That's your right, I'm not gonna name you ignorant because of it. Best I can do is urge you to listen to those artists again because they really are great.

(And yes, I know it's sarcasm)

Oh, and about making an educated opinion; we're all doing that, reordering the top 20 artists didn't ask for one but I'm sure Moonbeam could give you a reason for ranking The Beatles last. I think you should feel less attacked (for lack of better words) when someone doesn't like an artist you think is amazing.

Ok, in that case, Moonbeam - what's your hang-up about the Fab Four? For my sake (and others who are perhaps puzzled by your hatred for the Beatles), kindly explain. I'm looking for a Sound-of-Silver-eque diatribe here.

The floor is yours my friend!

Anthony, I found your judgment to be much more objectionable than your opinion. You basically said that I would get some sort of "smug self-satisfaction" out of ousting the sacred cow of the Beatles. That's not a very nice picture to paint. Then you tried to pidgeonhole me into one of three categories, two of which were also quite judgmental. You may think that trying to be "different" is pathetic, and I agree, but conforming my opinion to that of the critical consensus is just as pathetic. Lastly, your sarcastic rant about opinions didn't help matters either. I'm sorry that my opinions don't pass your "well-educated" litmus test. Look, I can take a joke on my behalf. But there is a difference between a good-natured ribbing and hostility. I miss seeing JR post here, but I think he was chased off because of his opinions as well...

As for explaining my disdain for the Beatles, I'll search for the "diatribe" I posted a while back here...

From October 21, 2005:

"I understand and accept that The Beatles had an enormous impact on music, but I have disliked every one of the 50 or so songs I've heard. This is for a number of reasons that applies to more than just Beatles music (pre-70s music in general perhaps):

1. I don't like their vocals. I can't stand the sound of their voices or their harmonies- they are perhaps too twee or sing-along, which is probably precisely why they are revered.

2. The style/production. I don't like the "wall of sound" approach so much, or the "tinny" sounding production. If they beefed up the bass, I could perhaps appreciate it more.

3. The band members themselves. John and Paul in particular have personalities that irritate the heck out of me. It's hard to connect to the music of an artist who turns your stomach in interviews/etc.

4. Some genre restrictions? I remember hearing Strawberry Fields Forever in a computer lab a few years ago and I could hardly stomach it. This in no way means that the songs are bad- I just didn't like their brand of psychedelia.

5. Admittedly, the hype. Unfortunately, we live in a world where anything less than complete adulation of The Beatles is simply unacceptable. Most (not all) Beatles fans I have encountered completely balk when they hear I don't like them and act as if I don't have ears. They are quick to dismiss my opinion or my taste (which I have never claimed was "good" in the first place!) without even hearing my stance. This reaction has had a negative effect as well- not as a reflection of the songs themselves, but as a reflection of the Beatles community at large.

As I mentioned, a lot of my reasons could be extended to a number of acts from that era. The only pre-70s rock music that I have explored and liked consists of: The Velvet Underground, Nico, The Doors, The Stooges, David Bowie, Jimi Hendrix, and Janis Joplin. I suppose I can deal with James Brown and Sly and the Family Stone as well, but much beyond that and I can deal without it, although I understand its impact.

I don't want this to sound like an "I hate The Beatles and they are so completely overrated" rant. It would be simply ignorant to deny their impact. But I can't force myself to like what I hear and conform to some preconceived notion of acceptable taste standards."

Since then, I have gotten into a few other artists who released material in the 60s- the most recent is Can. I'll go one step further and say that the Beatles' chirpy, chipper vocals are the biggest turnoff.

Well, first of all, thank you. That’s exactly what I was hoping for. I mean, I completely disagree with your comments, but at least you offered up some insight into your extreme dislike of the Beatles. Having only been on this site for the better part of the last six months, I didn’t see your post from two years ago.

As for the negative reaction that you’ve encountered from all the Beatles fans out there, I’m sure you understand that when you have such a polarizing opinion from what the general consensus is, you’re bound to receive a not-so-pleasant response. Now that I know your rationale, I can extend a little admiration your way for maintaining such an extreme position. And I apologize for my hostility and sarcasm – I wasn’t trying to be an asshole. Honestly. I’m actually a nice guy (although, judging from my posts here – and in other threads - you wouldn’t know it.)

I would still like to suggest that you go back and reinvest some time in the Beatles. I’m sure you’ve listened to their albums at length; however, here are just a few things to consider:

1. They are the most acclaimed group of all time for a reason. Yes, they are a personal favorite of mine (although not my #1 favorite band), but all personal opinion aside, their acclaim IS warranted – and that’s something that the majority of the musically-educated (ie. musicologists, university professors and music critics) agree on.
2. Listen to their music using the 60s as the context. In other words, think about how different it must’ve sounded at the time. Don’t come at their music from the mindset of a 80s child who’s grown up with music that glistens with pop sheen (yes, you and I are the same age.) Of course, if you listen to the Beatles music next to some modern-day Pro-Tooled pop nugget, it’s not going to sound as good to the ear – it will sound “tinny” and seem like the bass is missing. But that’s only the result of recording technology of that time. Letting technology inhibit your musical preference is

I’m probably missing something, but that’s a start. If anybody has anything to add so that our friend Moonbeam can grow to love the Beatles, that would be great.

And let this be a humorous lesson for everyone – if by chance you offer an opinion but fail to back it up, Anthony’s gonna come after you. And if I say something ridiculous or make a really stupid claim, by all means, CALL ME ON IT! Having to defend and explain my own opinions will make be a better music fan.

That’s all I’ve got to say. Looking forward to AM Survivor.

Here are some stats to keep the car running (yep, just listened to Neon Bible again). Hope this has not been posted already ...

The top 100 artists are geographically distributed as follows:
57: USA
31: England
4: Canada
2: Australia
1: Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Jamaica, Northern Ireland and Scotland

Or in the well-known three poles:
61: USA & Canada
34: UK & Ireland
5: Rest of the world

For artists 101 to 200 (participating in the Loophole round), this distribution is:
62: USA
28: England
3: Scotland
2: Germany
1: Australia, France, Ireland, Jamaica and Wales

62: USA & Canada
33: UK & Ireland
5: Rest of the world

For what it's worth

And this is what it looks like, considering each state in the US:

1. California (15 artists in top 100, 28 in top 200)
2. New York (11, 25)
3. Michigan (6, 12)
4. Georgia (6, 7)
5. New Jersey (5, 6)
6. Minnesota (2, 4)
7. Washington (2, 3)
8. Illinois (1, 7)
9. Texas (1, 4)
10. Mississippi and Tennessee (1, 3)
12. Massachusetts and Washington D.C. (1, 2)
14. Arkansas, Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia (1, 1)
18. Florida and Louisiana (0, 2)
20. Alabama, Arizona, Oklahoma, Oregon and Pennsylvania (0, 1)
25. other states (0, 0)

Will tune in again on Monday. Enjoy your weekend!

Peachy! Thanks, Dre.

In Survivor, I’m not planning to do as much “breaking down” of the field as I did in bracketology. But I feel like I ought to step up to your example, so here’s a list of the artists by decade.

I determined this by which decade they’re ranked the highest. So, Henrik has the Rolling Stones as the #3 artist of the 1960s, the #2 artist of the 1970s, and the #104 artist of the 1980s. So (counterintuitively, perhaps), the Stones are a 70s act.

TOP 100
Pre-1950: 0
1950s: 8
1960s: 22
1970s: 30
1980s: 22
1990s: 14
2000s: 4

NEXT 100
Pre-1950: 2
1950s: 9
1960s: 15
1970s: 23
1980s: 17
1990s: 20
2000s: 14

OK, enough preliminaries. I’m gonna go start the Loophole Round thread now.