2008
Portishead 321
Fleet Foxes 315
TV on The radio 308
None of these albums better place higher then any of those 3 from 2007. If they do there is something very very very wrong.
I know that things have change on the list. Radiohead did come out on top, but the only results we have are the ones provided in the updates page.
I'm not exactly sure how your system works, but hopfully there's something that gets added to your formula that lowers the point totals on this years albums. It would make no sense at all to see any album from this yuear reach passed the 250 mark
I think Third is on par with anything that came out last year, and certainly way better than Neon Bible. Boxer from 2007 deserves to be in the top 200, and so does Third.
But, I wouldn't go by those numbers to guess position. Those numbers are only based on year end lists from this year. Henrik's overall chart normalizes everything and incorporates all time lists too.
This score goes from 0 to 1000, where 1000 means that an album have been number one in all lists.
For 2008 the sentence above is true, but in the 2007 spreadsheet I had country-specific columns included, which made it impossible to get a score of 1000 and lowered the scores in general, as an album can't both be included in a magazine's home-country list and the international list. Hence, the 2007 and 2008 scores should not be compared.
Having said that, it actually looks like the acclaim was somewhat more spread in 2007, but my guess is that the top three from these years will be placed similarly in the all-time list.
But it then goes against radiohead, arcade fire, and lcd soundsystem because they fell into a better year of music. You'd think coming out on top in a great year would have its privaledges.
Don't think there's anything wrong. Comparing the scores from 2007 and 2008 does not make sense and should not eventually impact the AM ranking of these albums. The only conclusion you could make, Henrik already stated: The lower scores for 2007 speak for a more spread year.
Perhaps the equivalent for acclaimed movies apply: A movie winning 6 Oscars does not mean yet that it is a good movie. It might win less Oscars in another year and could thus be less acclaimed than a movie that wins only 1 or 2 Oscars.
But it then goes against radiohead, arcade fire, and lcd soundsystem because they fell into a better year of music.
That's your personal opinion, Kevin. Maybe a lot of critics have stated that 2007 was a better year, but remember that it always takes some time for music to achieve classic status. Future all-time lists will show if you're right (well, if the metascores were generally higher for 2007 albums, this will have an impact already in the next site update).
Those three records were so far ahead of everything this year (according to critics) the rest of the top ten last year weren't cast as far behind. I assume that there are only so many points that can go round.
I just think it would be nice to stick to a certain number of lists. Top off at 75. If someone feels a magazine is more respect then one that has been listed in the passed, then replace it with the new one.
If you add new lists every year, there's the likely hood that those particular mags all love portishead. Hypathetically they good have them as recieving 7 out of 10 possible First place mentions. It would significantly increase there status.
by setting a limit, you are setting a standard. By choosing the best mags, you'll be getting better results.
I know its subjective. But when things get they way, you go by reputation, and age. We as a group should be able to vote on the inclusions and exclusions of eligable lists.
In the end it would make it easier for you to compile the results. 10 -20 years from now, you might have 100 more lists to add. It'll get rediculous
