Guys, Whilst the web site is brilliant and you people deserve great credit for putting it together I am still very confused ! It is a very simple question but how can certain artist be placed above others in the all time artists list when they have one album in the whole 3000 albums list and other have 6 or 7 or more ? The classic example of this is the Sex Pistols, the most overrated and moronic band in the history of rock who released 2 great singles and somehow manage to get respect from people who should know better ! Compare these to other artists who have several albums in the top 3000 but are rated lower on the all time list.Singles simply should not be counted at all in terms of all time standing. They are only tracks from an album in most cases. It should be albums alone that should be taken into consideration. It should be simple. If you have an album that is placed at number 50 in the top 3000 then it should get 2950 points. If placed 3000 then it should get 1 point and you add up all the points for all the artists. No argument. In which case artist like the Pistols would be in a more desrving position than their al time rank of a top 50 place. Fair enough have a separate singles list but it should not be weighted into the all time artist ranking at all.

Pete, this is not how the artist ranking is carried out, but I think it shows that my ranking sums up the critics' opinion pretty well.

Number of best of all-time/decade lists per artist.

Artist #37: Sex Pistols
124 (all for Never Mind the Bollocks)

Artist #65: Steely Dan
17 (Can't Buy a Thrill) + 16 (Countdown to Ecstasy) + 20 (Pretzel Logic) + 8 (Katy Lied) + 6 (The Royal Scam) + 25 (Aja) + 6 (Gaucho) + 1 (Two Against Nature) = 99

However, in the artist ranking based on albums alone, Sex Pistols are only at 93rd place while Steely Dan is #42 in the same list. Maybe I do need to change the formula after all? (Although this could definitely be argued, I'm kidding here, and also proving that in fact my formula does benefit artists with several acclaimed albums/songs.)

If songs weren't counted in the artist list, Hank Williams wouldn't be ranked at all...

Henrik, i feel sorry for you whenever i see a (another) topic like this. your formulas are brilliant. in fact, AM in general is brilliant. keep up the good work.

have you ever considered putting a sticky up in an attempt to catch the steely dan lovers and sex pistols haters before they post.

First of all, I think Henrik made this site on his own (right?), so all credits go to him! And I'm personally quite happy with Henrik's artist rating formula too.

Taste is subjective, so any discussion regarding Sex Pistols haters or Steely Dan lovers is 'bollocks'.

So it's not about being right or wrong here. This is more about the selection of music and choice of rating, which are to a certain extend both arbitrary.

Regarding the selection of music: Henrik collects any critics lists concerning 'popular' music, I think only classical music is excluded. Than there are critics lists regarding single pieces of music (songs) and multiple pieces of music (albums). Both types of lists indicate the acclaim of an artist, and not only in times where there were no albums (e.g. Hank Williams). So I personally think it's great that both songs and albums are taken into account, even though I'm more of an album person.

Regarding the choice of rating: It's quite impossible to make a representative rating system that everybody likes, but it is possible to make a rating that most people will have affinity with. For the artist rating Henrik includes up to 6 highest ranked albums and 6 highest ranked songs, which one can argue. I'm fine with that, the AM 3000 list is not a music bible for me anyway, a higher rank does not make a song, album or artist any better or worse.

Pete, I doubt if the rating score you suggest would get much support. For example, imagine one artist with one album at #1 and another artist with two ranked albums at #1500 and #1501. The latter one would be a higher ranked artist according to your suggestion, I would feel quite uncomfortable with that.

Anyway, we agree on the most important thing: The web site is brilliant!

Thanks Moeboid and Andre! And Pete, I'm not against new ideas, but this time it seems like you're fairly alone in your opinion.

...the AM 3000 list is not a music bible for me anyway...

How dare you say that?

Updates? hows that goin?

Kevin, there's a sticky thread titled "updates" at the very top of the forum that will tell you all about it. Read the last few posts in that thread, dated today.

Take a look at the Rateyourmusic.com charts and then come back and applaud Henrik on the work he's done!

I know that it's different but those RYM charts are screwy.