For songs released in different versions I have normally filed it under the first year it was released, however I have not been entirley consequent.

Pet Shop Boys' "West End Girls" is filed under 1985, but the first version of the song came in 1984. Similar with Richard Hell & The Voidoids' "Blank Celebration" (filed under 1977 but the first version came out in 1976). On the other hand, for example Interpol's "PDA" is filed under 2000 and not 2002 although in all these cases, the latter release is the acclaimed version.

So, what do you think the AM rule should be when a post-first version of a song becomes acclaimed?

I think that if the critical consensus is to acclaim a later (perhaps improved) version, the later date should be used.

Although that might open up some sticky questions about songs recorded in the studio that later came to the attention of critics via a famous live performance (like, say, "No Woman No Cry")...

Little differences between versions often lead to all the acclaim. The La's "There She Goes", for one, would have remained unknown if the 1990 re-release hadn't thickened up the sound a little bit with more focus on the hook.

In all honesty, I'd have preferred it if the 2000 version of "PDA" was the right one. Mostly because I went through the trouble of getting the version from 2000 before I realized the right one was from 2002...

I didn't usually check what the critics' lists said. I'll go through them again and let you know what I think makes sense in every case.

For now, I bring to your attention another Interpol's "PDA" situation: "How Can I Love You More?" by M People was released two times, first in 1991 and then in 1993, and both times it was an UK Top 10 hit. You've included the 1991 version, but the 1993 remix is different enough to warrant a 1993 slot. (Thank goodness I noticed that in time. I don't like M People enough to hunt down the 1991 version - and am happy enough limiting myself to the 1993 version found on the Greatest Hits now that my conscience is clear that that one is the right one...)

To clarify: if you check, it's either the 1993 version that's in the critics' list, or it's not specified. That makes a strong case for turning 91 into 93 I reckon.

And I'd be happy if you kept the studio version of "No Woman, No Cry".

And, if you're asking this in preparation for an update (OMG!!!!!), can you PLEASE add overall rankings to the bubbling under songs? Like for, say, Chubby Checker's "Let's Twist Again", it would still be bubbling under, but you would let us know that it is #3499 overall. Thank you.

As much as I'd also love to see the exact rankings of the Bubbling Under albums and songs, mismaiome, I think it would kind of defeat the purpose of having a "Bubbling Under" section if we -knew- what positions they were in. Why not just expand the lists to 3500 or 4000 if you're going to do that? Come to think of it, why NOT expand the lists to 4000? (Just kidding, Henrik - unless you gon' do it, to quote current song #616.)

Hmm, I was kinda hoping you would say the opposite - always going for the original version/year seems to me to be the easiest way to handle this. What if I file "PDA" under 2002 and then another critic list includes the 2000 version. Should I then move it to 2000 or keep it under 2002?

It struck me that perhaps this isn't very different from the issue of albums being re-released with bonus tracks (which isn't an issue because I would never dream about using the release date of the bonus track CD)?

So if you prefer release dates for the "most acclaimed version" you have to convince me more!

Regarding the positions for the bubbling under songs, I don't show them because I don't know them. There are a lot of songs that are not listed at AM that would be ahead of some of the bubbling under songs.

As much as I'd also love to see the exact rankings of the Bubbling Under albums and songs, mismaiome, I think it would kind of defeat the purpose of having a "Bubbling Under" section if we -knew- what positions they were in. Why not just expand the lists to 3500 or 4000 if you're going to do that? Come to think of it, why NOT expand the lists to 4000? (Just kidding, Henrik - unless you gon' do it, to quote current song #616.)


An expansion to 4000 would be neat, but even 3000 seems overwhelming at first, until you get used to it (and then it starts like not seeming like so much anymore).

I think there's a charm to having bubbling under songs - the charm of showing the songs that weren't lucky to make it into the 3000. But there would be a charm to having rankings for them too, since then you could have the acclaimed songs together with the bubbling under ones in one big playlist, if you were going to listen to them all.

So why not have the best of both worlds and keep the bubbling under but annotate it?


Hmm, I was kinda hoping you would say the opposite - always going for the original version/year seems to me to be the easiest way to handle this.


Well, for me it's not a big deal to check in every case and let you know which year makes sense, with me being obsessive-compulsive and all.


What if I file "PDA" under 2002 and then another critic list includes the 2000 version. Should I then move it to 2000 or keep it under 2002?


I seriously doubt that's going to happen. The 2000 version was on an EP that was limited to 1000 copies. Similar situations occur for other songs too, where the acclaimed song is bound to remain the acclaimed one.

If somehow that was really going to happen, though, I'd suggest putting in the year of the more popular version.


It struck me that perhaps this isn't very different from the issue of albums being re-released with bonus tracks (which isn't an issue because I would never dream about using the release date of the bonus track CD)?


I don't think that applies here. Bonus tracks tend to be insubstantial, and even when they aren't, they don't change the general impression of the album that much!

Whereas different versions of the same song... a whole different universe!

You know how playing songs live can ruin them, right? Well, mixing them wrong can do it too - in fact, a lot of "filler" songs could be hits if you mixed them right.

I think putting in the year of the first version would be like putting in the album version of Everything But The Girl's "Missing" (which no one knows) instead of the famous Todd Terry Remix. It doesn't seem right, because, while pleasant, the original doesn't leave so much of an impression. Same with, say, Tori Amos' "Professional Widow" and Armand's Star Trunk Funkin' Mix.


Regarding the positions for the bubbling under songs, I don't show them because I don't know them. There are a lot of songs that are not listed at AM that would be ahead of some of the bubbling under songs.


What do you mean?

What do you mean?

I mean that the bubbling under songs are not necessarily more acclaimed than the songs not listed at all. That's why it says "some bubbling under songs". Hence, positions for the bubbling under songs would be misleading.

But why aren't some songs listed? They're in the critics' list, but not in the site database?

I must understand!

I think it's that the recent year-lists (due to having a lot more EOY-critics lists) have a lot more songs on them (including bubbling under, that is), so new songs are more heavily represented in the bubbling under list.

Note: This is just something I noticed, I could be completely off.

But the principles for establishing rankings should still work the same, right?

Here's how it works. I have two source spreadsheets. In "spreadsheet 1" I add all the lists and positions for each song.

"Spreadsheet 2" (actually a set of documents) is way more detailed. It has information for each critics list and each song if it was included, excluded or ineligible (e.g. a 1974 song was ineligible for all EOY lists from 2006, a 2003 song was ineligible for an all-time list from 1995, and a UK song was ineligible for a list of the best Canadian songs ever). In addition, all the information you see on the website (country, amazon links, etc.) are added for each artist/song.

Right now there are 14,000 songs that are in spreadsheet 1 but not in spreadsheet 2. They are not listed at AM, but every time I think a song could break into the AM top 3000, I include the song in spreadsheet 2. However, most of the songs in spreadsheet 1 have only been included in one critic list.

A ranking of the 'bubbling under' albums is even more difficult, as I use some ratings as sources, and it would be impossible to collect all ratings from every source. Normally I include ratings (in spreadsheet 1) for each album that have been listed in more than one critics list. Then again, if I think an album could break into the AM top 3000 I include the album in spreadsheet 2.

I'm feeling generous today, so here's spreadsheet 1 for the songs. I can post the album spreadsheet later if you like (it's too messy at the moment).

Has anybody been able to open that document. I wasn't able myself from that link. Could the file be too large (almost 6 MB)?

I have saved a copy as a binary Excel sheet (file extension .xlsb). I don't know what version of Excel you need to open this, but now it's only 1.7 MB large...

The first one works fine for me. Interesting stuff.

Henrik you're either a geek or a genius. Or both.
Either way you've gained even more respect from me than you already had when I see how your file and method are complicated and represent that much work just for our pleasure !

Thanks Lonesome Panda! It's my pleasure too!

This is awesome! I have a few questions, if you don't mind me asking!

Approximately how many lists does a song need to appear on before it advances to Spreadsheet 2?

Would you be interested in some help in adding years to these songs? I know that I can add a bunch.

What happens when you run out of columns? Excel only goes through IV, and you're already through HM!

Have you considered using a different program (like R) to carry out your computations?

Sorry if all of this is nosy. A huge thank you for sharing this with us!

Approximately how many lists does a song need to appear on before it advances to Spreadsheet 2?
It depends. Normally 2 or 3, but if all lists are EOY lists and have the song in the lower region it may need more lists (just because I know it won't make the top 3000).

Would you be interested in some help in adding years to these songs? I know that I can add a bunch.
Absolutely. Thanks!
If you add some years, please add them in a colour so I know what's new information. And/or we can agree about a working period in which I don't insert any new rows to the sheet (which would make cut and paste of the whole column safe).

What happens when you run out of columns? Excel only goes through IV, and you're already through HM!
This happened a long time ago for albums. I keep track of a couple of lists in a lot of columns. The lists have to be very different so I'm sure about the correct source for each entry. This sounds shaky but it works (so far, at least).

Have you considered using a different program (like R) to carry out your computations?
I'm not using Excel for the computations...

Sorry if all of this is nosy. A huge thank you for sharing this with us!
Many thanks, Moonbeam!

Wow, Henrik. Years' work, in just a few Excel files! Awesome!


"Spreadsheet 2" (actually a set of documents) is way more detailed. It has information for each critics list and each song if it was included, excluded or ineligible (e.g. a 1974 song was ineligible for all EOY lists from 2006, a 2003 song was ineligible for an all-time list from 1995, and a UK song was ineligible for a list of the best Canadian songs ever). In addition, all the information you see on the website (country, amazon links, etc.) are added for each artist/song.


I've been wondering if there isn't some way to do that automatically with the processing program?

Instead of putting in manually whether a song was eligible or not, could you just compare songs with each other?

For example, in a list of best Australian songs, give song #1 bonus points over #2 and everything that follows, and give #2 bonus points over what follows it, and so on.

So that means that, when it comes to a list of songs not based on nationality, the #1 of the Australian songs from earlier has some bonus points over the non-Australian songs that #2 is above in this second list, even if #1 is in fact lower than #2 on this list.

Imagine the Australian list (which actually exists):

#1: The Easybeats - Friday on my Mind
#2: Daddy Cool - Eagle Rock
(and so forth)

Now imagine you added a non-nationality list that went like this:

(...)
#118: Daddy Cool - Eagle Rock
(...)
#200: The Temptations - My Girl
(...)
#220: The Easybeats - Friday on my Mind
(...)

"Friday on my Mind" may be lower than "Eagle Rock" and "My Girl" here, but it was higher than "Eagle Rock" earlier, so it catches up with it overall, and for the same reason catches up with "My Girl" overall too.

Instead of every song comparing with every other song, and having to specify that some are Australian and some are black and so on.

It would solve the non-eligibility thing too, considering it would just be comparing songs among themselves.

I also remember you had this feature related to non-eligibility: newer lists weigh more than old lists.

But you could insert a variable that gives more weigh to comparisons on newer lists, I assume?

What do you say?


Right now there are 14,000 songs that are in spreadsheet 1 but not in spreadsheet 2. They are not listed at AM, but every time I think a song could break into the AM top 3000, I include the song in spreadsheet 2. However, most of the songs in spreadsheet 1 have only been included in one critic list.


Wow. So many. I hope I can hear them all in this lifetime. (Luckily, I'm still just in my 20's.)

Ah. So the bubbling under songs are the ones that you think could break in.

But valuing their ranking should work by the same principles, right? Couldn't you process them in the program if you wanted to?

I've counted them. There are a whooping 1272 bubbling under songs. And please, it would so neat to see their rankings.

And the ones bubbling under the under, those 14.000, could be left as they are. We could go through them later on.

I can help with anything involved if it seems like a burden.

Henrik, I've added years and a few other slight changes (misspellings of artists and/or songs) to some songs in Spreadsheet 1. I haven't changed a whole bunch (only about 1000), because I thought I'd see if you were happy with the format, etc. To which e-mail address should I send the updated file?

That's great, Moonbeam! Please send to firstname.surname@gmail.com (surname=Franzon).

mismaiome, eligibility is important. Just look at an alternation of your own example, where "Eagle Rock" is not listed at all on the Australian list:

#1: The Easybeats - Friday on my Mind
Not listed: Daddy Cool - Eagle Rock

And the non-nationality list that went like this:

(...)
#118: Daddy Cool - Eagle Rock
(...)
#200: The Temptations - My Girl
(...)
#220: The Easybeats - Friday on my Mind
(...)

Now, if I understood you correctly, "Eagle Rock" would not lose anything by the non-inclusion in the Australian list and perhaps be ahead of "Friday on my Mind" in total. I think that would be a serious mistake.

Scrolling around, I've noticed "Beautiful" by Christina Aguilera in there (not sure why it had to be that one) on the list. It's already #2476 on AM though.

Moonbeam, let's team up on this stuff?

mismaiome, eligibility is important. Just look at an alternation of your own example, where "Eagle Rock" is not listed at all on the Australian list:

#1: The Easybeats - Friday on my Mind
Not listed: Daddy Cool - Eagle Rock

And the non-nationality list that went like this:

(...)
#118: Daddy Cool - Eagle Rock
(...)
#200: The Temptations - My Girl
(...)
#220: The Easybeats - Friday on my Mind
(...)

Now, if I understood you correctly, "Eagle Rock" would not lose anything by the non-inclusion in the Australian list and perhaps be ahead of "Friday on my Mind" in total. I think that would be a serious mistake.


I understand. You mean that, basically, "Eagle Rock" not being on the Australian list means it's not good enough for it to be on the list. It loses points in comparison to everything on it, because it is an Australian song after all, so why isn't it on there?

So it counts as a disqualified song.

However, this does mean that, in general, if a critic's list forgets to include stuff that perhaps it should include, the forgotten are regarded as not good enough.

Take The New Nation (UK) - Top 100 Albums by Black Artists as an example.

Now, the merits of that list aside, it does seem natural that critics would - based on worth alone - include more albums by the same artist on a list. But then they get bored and they say:

"Should we have 3 albums by Steve Wonder? Should we include Talking Book in there? We already have 2 Stevie albums, so why do it?"

And so, "Talking Book" ends up being a theoretical #101 on that list. "Stronger than Pride" by Sade is above it.

Wow. Did you really go around noting for each album in part whether it was a black album or not? That must have been insane. How did you decide which one was a black album or not, when it was unclear?

I've sent away, Henrik!

Oh. Henrik, in a list of the best guitar songs ever, a lot of songs wouldn't qualify at all, like The Ronettes' "Be My Baby" for example. Does that mean that it loses points, because it's not specified that it's not eligible?

I've been thinking that simply comparing songs between each other is Short, Sweet & Simple, and it would save you a lot of work.

Also, both this simpler method and the eligibility one can lead to unfairness in actual ranking, but the former one more because of lack of critics' lists. (But who knows - perhaps someday more critics lists will be available, and they'll correct the issue?)

What do you think?

Also, I'd say it would give the more obscure albums - the ones that are very acclaimed, but are often forgotten - more of a fighting chance.

Because perhaps omission is not equal to disqualification?

I can of course see issues with my idea regardless.

Suppose there was a highly acclaimed Spanish album that Spanish critics declared to be better than any other album released that year. Other critics wouldn't include that album in their lists at all, because they don't speak Spanish (the ever-present anglophone bias) and so find it harder to defer to an album in Spanish. But it would mean the album would end up being the top album of that year, which perhaps isn't fair considering the Spanish critics are likely themselves to have a Spanish bias.

So it's one bias against the other really.

But then there are other messy situations. How do you deal with an album like Amy Winehouse's "Back to Black"? Does it qualify as both a 2006 album and a 2007 one? Do you deduct points from it for not having been on 2006 end-of-year lists?

I guess I'll think about it more once you tell me how you usually deal with the black and guitar lists I mentioned above.

It's like with voting sites. Does, say, a film with 10,000 votes that amount to a perfect 10 count more than a film with 100,000 votes that amount to a 9?

I guess it's all about where you draw the line.

You could take away points from songs that are on too few lists.

It's like with voting sites. Does, say, a film with 10,000 votes that amount to a perfect 10 count more than a film with 100,000 votes that amount to a 9?

I don't use a scoring system like imdb or metacritic, it's more like BillAdama's list of 2008 records where albums are compared to each other and the number of wins and losses are used for the ranking.


I guess I'll think about it more once you tell me how you usually deal with the black and guitar lists I mentioned above.

mismaoime, thanks for your suggestions, but I'm not changing the ranking system. I'm happy with what I have, even if it's complicated and time-consuming. As for black and guitar lists, I either have all songs not on the list as disqualified or do not include the list at all. That depends on if the critic source is specialised in that genre. The new Rolling Stone's greatest guitar songs list will not be included, because RS covers other music too. However, if the list had come from Guitar Magazine it would have been included, because it would have been a non-biased view of what the magazine recommends.

Country-specific lists can be included from any source. It's much easier to differentiate the albums/songs, so records from other countries are not used for the wins or losses calculations.

I don't use a scoring system like imdb or metacritic, it's more like BillAdama's list of 2008 records where albums are compared to each other and the number of wins and losses are used for the ranking.


Yes, I know - I was referring merely to the fact that it'd be a similar situation of figuring out if a few great votes weigh more than a lot of good ones.


As for black and guitar lists, I either have all songs not on the list as disqualified or do not include the list at all.


Err. You mean only the songs on a black list count as black, and only the songs on a guitar list count as guitar? The way I was using the word disqualified was not good enough to be on the list, and therefore penalized. But I suppose you mean the other meaning.


The new Rolling Stone's greatest guitar songs list will not be included, because RS covers other music too.


Yeah, but, for example, you've used "Uncut (UK) - Nirvana's 20 Greatest Songs (2004)" even though Uncut cover other music too.

And what about when someone has a list of the best Rock albums of all time? Does that mean the jazz albums are deducted points? That would be a bit apples & pineapples.

And also. How do you deal with a situation where an album like U2's "Joshua Tree" appears on both a list of the best Irish albums and on a list of the best British albums? Same for AC/DC's "Highway to Hell", which is on a British and and an Australian list too. Do you make Britishy exceptions for them just those one times?


Country-specific lists can be included from any source. It's much easier to differentiate the albums/songs, so records from other countries are not used for the wins or losses calculations.


Yeah, I was merely wondering how it'd be like to have "records from other lists are not used for the wins or losses calculations". Sorry if I've been nosy.

Can't wait for the new update! A whole new year added to the site... that's awesome!

But... pwease pwease pwease, the bubbling unders' rankings! I will worship you forever.

Anyway, to put it best: I was saying that 50 lists voting for AC/DC's "Back in Black" would always beat 17 lists voting for The Zombies' "Odessey & Oracle", even if the compilers of half of those 50 lists had never listened to The Zombies' album.

So the 50 lists add up to showing what is most often acclaimed as perhaps opposed to most acclaimed.

Although I do imagine that giving "Odessey" a bonus would lead to a lot of other undeserving albums having bonuses too, considering critics' picks are far more fanciful than they should be.

Err. You mean only the songs on a black list count as black, and only the songs on a guitar list count as guitar? The way I was using the word disqualified was not good enough to be on the list, and therefore penalized. But I suppose you mean the other meaning.

Same meaning but in a broader sense. In this case the non-black songs were penalized because they aren't covered by the specialized source.

Yeah, but, for example, you've used "Uncut (UK) - Nirvana's 20 Greatest Songs (2004)" even though Uncut cover other music too.

Artists lists are handled in the same way as country lists, since artists are easy to differentiate.

And what about when someone has a list of the best Rock albums of all time? Does that mean the jazz albums are deducted points? That would be a bit apples & pineapples.

Yes, this is somewhat of a problem, although most of the sources that produce rock lists are rock-specific magazines and vice versa.

How do you deal with a situation where an album like U2's "Joshua Tree" appears on both a list of the best Irish albums and on a list of the best British albums?

I don't see why this would be an issue. I just make all Irish albums eligible for both lists.

But... pwease pwease pwease, the bubbling unders' rankings!

The bubbling unders are on the site because I - at some point - thought that they could make the top 3000. But the 14000 songs in spreadsheet 1 are bubbling under just as well and some of them would beat a lot of the bubbling unders on the site. Hence, positions for bubbling unders (without a compilation of all 14000, which is unreasonable) would be inadequate.

Same meaning but in a broader sense. In this case the non-black songs were penalized because they aren't covered by the specialized source.


Oh, I thought you were comparing them just between themselves.


I don't see why this would be an issue. I just make all Irish albums eligible for both lists.


Yeah, but some British lists don't consider the Irish as British and don't vote for them. Overall I guess it doesn't matter that much, perhaps.


The bubbling unders are on the site because I - at some point - thought that they could make the top 3000. But the 14000 songs in spreadsheet 1 are bubbling under just as well and some of them would beat a lot of the bubbling unders on the site. Hence, positions for bubbling unders (without a compilation of all 14000, which is unreasonable) would be inadequate.


Yeah, but, if there are other songs that would beat the bubbling unders, why keep the bubbling unders in the first place?

Your choices of the bubbling unders were based on hunches, but they seem like good choices - you didn't choose them out of the blue. And since you have them in the database already, showing their rankings can't be wronger than having them displayed on the site in the first place.