The Old Acclaimed Music Forum
Go to the NEW FORUM
This has probably been addressed elsewhere, so my apologies in advance, but what is going to be in the next update and when will it be?
Color me excited. 
Hmmm- didn't know about that, Stephan. So, what would be the best course of action- to list the songs on the spreadsheet or as a regular document file?
When I did the SPIN albums thing, Henrik had sent a spreadsheet listing albums, and if an album was included in the SPIN book, I put an X next to it, leaving albums not in the book blank. That seems like the easiest route for Henrik- otherwise he would have to go through his master list of thousands of titles and X the songs. Then again, maybe it wouldn't be that much of an issue, I don't know. Not the most tech-savvy individual, hence me wondering. 
Thanks.
Yah, Popdose limiting that list to Hot 100 entries does leave out a heap of tracks. First the low amount of females on the list and now this.
You're a regular Nelson Mandela, Henrik, holding out like that. That's a nice surprise. And, "anti-commercial" weight- makes sense to me. 
As a reminder- as you mentioned before, you will be removing the Igauna songs listings for this update?
I have redone the list again for easy reference, including the NME and VH1 lists.
* All decade-end lists in the 2000s spreadsheet
* Year-end lists (2008, 2009)
* Blender (USA) - The Greatest Songs Ever (the few songs that remained to be added)
* Paste (USA) - The 30 Best Wilco Songs (2011)
* Pitchfork (USA) - The Pitchfork 500 (200
* Pitchfork (USA) - Top 200 Tracks of the 1990s
* Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (USA)- New additions to The Songs That Shaped Rock
* Rolling Stone (USA) - 40 Songs That Changed the World (2007)
* Rolling Stone(USA) - 100 Greatest Beatles Songs (2010)
* Rolling Stone (USA) - 70 Greatest Bob Dylan Songs (2011)
* Slant (USA) - Best Singles of the 90s (2011)
* Spin (USA) - Nominations For the Best Songs of the Last 25 Years (2010)
* Time Magazine (USA) - A Song A Decade (1950s-1990s)
* Treble (USA) - Top 100 Singles of the '90s (2007)
* Treble (USA) - The Top 200 Songs of the 80s (2011)
* VH1 (USA) - 100 Greatest Songs of the 00s (2011)
* Hervé Bourhis (France): Le Petit Livre Rock" (The Little Rock Book - "The Juke Box! Singles, 1950-2009
* Le Nouvel Observateur (France) - Top 100 French Singles from 1951-1991 (1991)
* VOLUME (France) - 200 Records that Changed the World, 2008 (38 songs)
* The Guardian (UK) - 1000 Songs Everyone Must Hear (2009)
* Mojo (UK) - 80 From the 80s: Our Fave 45s For Each Year, 1980-1989 (2007)
* New Musical Express (UK) - Classic Singles
* New Musical Express (UK) - 150 Best Tracks of the Past 15 Years (2011)
* Q (UK) - The 10 Most Perfect Song Ever (2007)
* STM Entertainment (Australia) - 50 Best Songs- Ever (2007)
That's a nice surprise. And, "anti-commercial" weight- makes sense to me. As a reminder- as you mentioned before, you will be removing the Igauna songs listings for this update?
I have redone the list again for easy reference, including the NME and VH1 lists.
* All decade-end lists in the 2000s spreadsheet
* Year-end lists (2008, 2009)
* Blender (USA) - The Greatest Songs Ever (the few songs that remained to be added)
* Paste (USA) - The 30 Best Wilco Songs (2011)
* Pitchfork (USA) - The Pitchfork 500 (200
* Pitchfork (USA) - Top 200 Tracks of the 1990s
* Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (USA)- New additions to The Songs That Shaped Rock
* Rolling Stone (USA) - 40 Songs That Changed the World (2007)
* Rolling Stone(USA) - 100 Greatest Beatles Songs (2010)
* Rolling Stone (USA) - 70 Greatest Bob Dylan Songs (2011)
* Slant (USA) - Best Singles of the 90s (2011)
* Spin (USA) - Nominations For the Best Songs of the Last 25 Years (2010)
* Time Magazine (USA) - A Song A Decade (1950s-1990s)
* Treble (USA) - Top 100 Singles of the '90s (2007)
* Treble (USA) - The Top 200 Songs of the 80s (2011)
* VH1 (USA) - 100 Greatest Songs of the 00s (2011)
* Hervé Bourhis (France): Le Petit Livre Rock" (The Little Rock Book - "The Juke Box! Singles, 1950-2009
* Le Nouvel Observateur (France) - Top 100 French Singles from 1951-1991 (1991)
* VOLUME (France) - 200 Records that Changed the World, 2008 (38 songs)
* The Guardian (UK) - 1000 Songs Everyone Must Hear (2009)
* Mojo (UK) - 80 From the 80s: Our Fave 45s For Each Year, 1980-1989 (2007)
* New Musical Express (UK) - Classic Singles
* New Musical Express (UK) - 150 Best Tracks of the Past 15 Years (2011)
* Q (UK) - The 10 Most Perfect Song Ever (2007)
* STM Entertainment (Australia) - 50 Best Songs- Ever (2007)
And what about "Les 100 meilleurs albums de rock (2010)" by Nicolas Dupuy for example and other all time list ?
Good luck for the next update.
Good luck for the next update.
As has been previously noted, the coming update will be songs-only, to get the songs list complete through 2009 to match the albums list. NEXT year's update will cover both all-time lists, and will hopefully incorporate the albums and songs from both 2010 and 2011.
Seriously, I was waiting for someone come back on this, but perhaps not everyone reads this thread. My standpoint is this: Acclaimed Music and sales charts both rank music from top to bottom, but from different angles (critical judgment and popularity). While the sales chart are hugely dependent on what's "available", the ideal situation for the critical judgment would be if every song or album would have - quality aside - the same chance to be judged. However, as it is inevitable for the critics and music industry workers that availability plays a role in the makings of their lists, I use a weighting factor to get a little bit closer to the ideal situation. Nevertheless, less reachable music will always be underestimated.
Something like VH1's list stands out because there is such a focus on mainstream, commercial, hit music, with the very rare non-hit tossed in. That's fine and dandy, but when it includes acts that are obvious critically challenged acts, then I definitely see no issue with something like that having less weight than another list.
How's the update coming along, Henrik? 
Seriously, I was waiting for someone come back on this, but perhaps not everyone reads this thread. My standpoint is this: Acclaimed Music and sales charts both rank music from top to bottom, but from different angles (critical judgment and popularity). While the sales chart are hugely dependent on what's "available", the ideal situation for the critical judgment would be if every song or album would have - quality aside - the same chance to be judged. However, as it is inevitable for the critics and music industry workers that availability plays a role in the makings of their lists, I use a weighting factor to get a little bit closer to the ideal situation. Nevertheless, less reachable music will always be underestimated.
The obvious difficulty in this is that there is no way to assess what critics have and have not heard. I'd say that there are definitely a number of indie "classics" that never sold much, but have been heard by nearly all critics. You'd be hard-pressed to find a critic these days who hasn't heard, say, "Tunnels" by Arcade Fire, despite how poorly it may have sold. And what about songs popular on radio that we're singles, like "Stairway to Heaven"?
Seriously, I was waiting for someone come back on this, but perhaps not everyone reads this thread. My standpoint is this: Acclaimed Music and sales charts both rank music from top to bottom, but from different angles (critical judgment and popularity). While the sales chart are hugely dependent on what's "available", the ideal situation for the critical judgment would be if every song or album would have - quality aside - the same chance to be judged. However, as it is inevitable for the critics and music industry workers that availability plays a role in the makings of their lists, I use a weighting factor to get a little bit closer to the ideal situation. Nevertheless, less reachable music will always be underestimated.
So could it be argued that this new weighting system is based more on how inclusive the list appears to be? Or put another way, a list that includes more "unknown" songs/albums would have a higher weight than a list that includes little to no "unknown" songs/albums? And if that's the case, what is the criteria for if something is "known" or "unknown"?
Basically, here's what's going through my mind... The predominant argument seems to be that VH1's lists are not an accurate representation of music as a whole because those lists are largely a reflection of what is popular on VH1. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of VH1; they seem to have a love affair with Cher's "Believe" that I don't share.
But what's to say that, for their list of the 100 Greatest Songs of the '00s, they truly did give EVERY song a fair shake and determined that Franz Ferdinand's "Take Me Out" (which is currently at #69 on AM, but was unlisted by VH1) was not as good a song as Colbie Caillat's "Bubbly" (which is currently unlisted here at AM, but is #71 according to VH1)? I guess what I'm trying to say is that just because a list doesn't include lesser-known songs doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't considered and then rejected as "not good enough".
If I'm being a pain in the ass, please say so and I'll shut up.
Seriously, I was waiting for someone come back on this, but perhaps not everyone reads this thread. My standpoint is this: Acclaimed Music and sales charts both rank music from top to bottom, but from different angles (critical judgment and popularity). While the sales chart are hugely dependent on what's "available", the ideal situation for the critical judgment would be if every song or album would have - quality aside - the same chance to be judged. However, as it is inevitable for the critics and music industry workers that availability plays a role in the makings of their lists, I use a weighting factor to get a little bit closer to the ideal situation. Nevertheless, less reachable music will always be underestimated.
So could it be argued that this new weighting system is based more on how inclusive the list appears to be? Or put another way, a list that includes more "unknown" songs/albums would have a higher weight than a list that includes little to no "unknown" songs/albums? And if that's the case, what is the criteria for if something is "known" or "unknown"?
Basically, here's what's going through my mind... The predominant argument seems to be that VH1's lists are not an accurate representation of music as a whole because those lists are largely a reflection of what is popular on VH1. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of VH1; they seem to have a love affair with Cher's "Believe" that I don't share.
But what's to say that, for their list of the 100 Greatest Songs of the '00s, they truly did give EVERY song a fair shake and determined that Franz Ferdinand's "Take Me Out" (which is currently at #69 on AM, but was unlisted by VH1) was not as good a song as Colbie Caillat's "Bubbly" (which is currently unlisted here at AM, but is #71 according to VH1)? I guess what I'm trying to say is that just because a list doesn't include lesser-known songs doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't considered and then rejected as "not good enough".
If I'm being a pain in the ass, please say so and I'll shut up.
I agree. I think it's a slippery slope to make judgments about what songs/albums were considered for a list. I think that if anything, mainstream pop is actually underrepresented on this site, not overrepresented.
In a lot of cases, though, mainstream pop really isn't GREAT stuff. Being accessible and catchy doesn't necessarily make it good all the time. I can listen to a lot of stuff on the radio, whether during a workout or whatever, but I would not seek it out to listen to or purchase it. Certain mainstream acts have transcended just the mainstream pop genre on a regular basis, while others do so just with a single or two.
Ooh- nice find, Henrik. Love 80s lists- and some great tracks on there.
Hopefully Slant publishes 80s lists next year.