Taking sides; 'best' vs 'favourite'.

If it's targeted toward people who just want to know what they might like, the favorites.

If it's targeted to a bunch of music geeks who can all agree on what makes something "best", then best it is.

Also a factor is the length of the list. If I get a top 50, I have no problem sprinkling in more picks I think people should hear just to get a feel for how *I* think the year went. If I only get a top 20, it's generally just going to be my own faves.

some useful points raised [in article below], particularly the need to put some research in - to be informed of what is actually RELEASED in a particular year - before making informed judgements on best/ favourite lists, to contrast to the obvious high profile releases of the same promo parcel culture that many critics fall into the trap of - i am referring to the typical top choices in the pazz & jop poll - plus the stupid restricted voting system doesn't help - but that is different point].

For instance - a critic such, Chuck Eddy - adopts the research-centric approach, by being prepared to listen to a wide range of new releases - is to be applauded.

December 28, 2001
Year-End Lists: Are Critics' Top 10s Useless?
In a recent Entertainment Weekly article, Tom Sinclair asked, "Do top 10 lists really name the 'best' albums?" "Let's be honest, " he said, "critics can't really be objective about 35,000 new releases." In that sense, Sinclair is right. No human could possibly hear all 35,000 releases. No human would want to. No one should be expected to even try to hear much more than 1,000. Even that would push the patience of even the most passionate musicphile, leading them down the doomed path of burnout and cynicism, something that even superfan and critic Lester Bangs suffered from, along with the entire staff of Rolling Stone.

But all too often, critics use the huge volume of music as a lame excuse to be lazy and not try very hard to seek out good music. What Sinclair failed to note was that some critics are better than others, and objectivity has nothing to do with it. It's a given that critiquing art is subjective. But some can offer a much more informed, well-rounded opinion than others, based on how much time they've invested into listening to music, putting thought and research into finding more and understanding it. The key is to find the critic whose subjectivity is roughly compatible to yours, but they still hear way more albums than you do, so you don't have to. I look forward to year-end lists with much anticipation, because I know that I will inevitably get turned on to some great music that I missed earlier in the year.

There are ways to judge a critic. For example, Sinclair included Ryan Adams' underwhelming Gold on his top 10 list. As a fan of Adams' previous work, I looked forward to Gold. After giving it a fair review that it was decent, but not nearly as good as his other work, I ranked about 220 albums above Gold this year. I'm not the only one to think this. Even mega-fan Peter Blackstock, co-editor of No Depression magazine, took him to task for Gold being weak on melody and songcraft, with a high percentage of self-indulgent blunders and bad ideas. So I wonder, has Sinclair heard even a fraction of those 220 albums? Whether he did or didn't, his list is useless to me. He wasn't the only critic who overrated Gold. It ranked highly in the polls of British magazines Uncut and MOJO. I chalk it up to their skewed romanticization of anything "Americana" and know that there are some very knowledgeable writers on the staff who did not vote for Adams, but rather hidden gems like The Tyde.

So again, Sinclair is partially correct. Many critics' year-end top 10s, like Sinclair's, are utterly useless to me. They may be very capable writers. But as critics, they are merely hacks who have no business sharing with anyone but their friends and family what their year-end favorites are. It sounds harsh, but if you're going to present a list with some position of authority, shouldn't that authority be earned? There are too many "critics" who got their jobs by working up to their positions as journalists, not as music scholars. Shouldn't a critic put some time and effort into researching what might be good music out of those 30,000+ releases? Shouldn't they pay attention to other reviews and seek out what sounds promising rather than just blindly go through the stacks that the promotions people spoonfeed them via their publication? I listen to at the very least 500 albums a year, and I consider very carefully which ones to spend my limited time on. And unlike a lot of writers, I don't rely on what I just happen to get for free. It would be nice if every label gave me what I asked for, but as a humble webzine, I get blown off quite a bit, so I do my best to hear them in the stores, download MP3s, borrow from friends and buy them new and used with my hard earned cash.

To give readers perspective of my range of taste and knowledge, I keep an ongoing list of everything I've heard and liked enough to rank. Not only that, but I keep track of what I haven't heard, but heard or read about enough to think they are worth checking out. Every year it seems my haven't heard list gets larger. During the following year, that list shrinks somewhat as I gradually pick up albums. The important thing is I'm the only writer who you can look at my top 13, or top 50, or top 100 and disagree with rankings and wonder, what happened to your favorite album, and find out that either I did rank it lower, or I hadn't heard it yet, or I just didn't like it enough to rank it. What, you say, what if I just never heard of it? Impossible! ;)

I think every critic should have a web page where you could see a list like that. Then we'll know who really did their homework.

I wonder how Dancehall and hip hop will rate on people's end of year lists...

Therefore I don't have a problem with a critic - who explicitly states their personal lists reflect individual bias/ frame of reference and avoids certain genres they have no interest in.

This is also me. I think the main difference between a critic, and a general music lover is that a critic probably should feel the need to catalog and rank their picks - not so much because they are catalog-fools, but specifically so they can say, "I know you hate me because I didn't pick your record in my list, but to me, my #50 is this much better".

Another point - a critic could include a statement - of the typical types of music they dislike/ like

...or, could be apparent by their list anyway

And how is this different from a general music lover? The main difference is that a critic gets cash for giving his/her opinion. If you can bother to create a list in the first place, then you do have obvious reasons for liking the albums you do. That doesn't make the list "better", only "current". At any rate, you would hope a music critic truly enjoys music. Otherwise, why bother?

Well, its not a scientific thing...its up to the individual critic to seek out the music that he hasn't heard. But you can't just grab an album from it...you need to study the music behind it. Understand where its coming from. Too many critics try to measure music in some sort of mythical vaccuum, not realizing they bring in their own predjudices and myths into their critique with them. Can a suburban upper class white male review a hip hop album adequetly? I say yes - but not if he doesn't KNOW where hip hop is coming from - not just socioeconomically, but culturally and musically.

Well, just speaking on my own experience, but I had *never* put so much thought into how I might defend my choices before I started writing about music (perhaps getting hatemail about my reviews has helped here!). Making large lists is like the ultimate defense of one's tastes - these are my picks, regardless of the rest of the world, this is how I see things. I could have made lists before I ever reviewed a record, but they would have been much more flippantly arranged - and to be honest, I probably wouldn't have gone to the trouble.

Well I don't know anyone where else where music geeks congregate in such large numbers as right here - and I'd extimate that the chances of us ever achieving even a majority consensus in favour of any conceivable set of criteria for identifying the "best" anything are negligible.

Well, that's what I like about it here anyway.

Do any of us know where most music actually comes from to start with?

I'm not talking about geographic location is that's what you mean...I'm talking about the fact that it operates on a different value system/cultural base/musical history than rock music.

I like the implication that rock and hip hop have absolutely no cultural base and musical history in common. It's almost cute to claim that.

Ummmmm I never claimed they had nothing in common.

I claimed that they are musical forms based in seperate value systems.

But its ok if you don't understand what I'm saying.

"Rock and roll is a thing of the past/ so all you long haired faggots can kiss my ass"
-Schooly D
;)
Its all in good fun

Odd how you're the only one laughing.

I'm not quite sure what yr getting at here.
You have a criticism of my train of thought? Lemme know. Or perhaps I haven't listen to Pulp enough times to be able to have a dialogue with you.

Second, and more important, sounding like The Beatles will always - ALWAYS -
mean your music is automatically WAY better than anything sounding like
something that was written in the Brill Building. Actually managing to sound
like The Beatles is the Ultimate Musical Achievement and means you are able to
make music within the best music genre that has ever been created."

Since I've seen them live I suppose I've heard most of the songs,
and from those I can tell I have nothing against them, but wish
they had another singer. I never liked Jimmy Sommerville, and I
really have problems liking this guy too.

Btw: When it comes to new releases: Does anyone know when Silver
Sun's album is released?"

Kish Kash is an interesting example because it is pretty much out of step with fashion and critical trend on both sides of the Atlantic at the moment. Is it just that the initial enthusiasm was so contagious?

I just think this is a really interesting area of thought.

TRIPLE X-POST.

Well of course...but at the same time, people run and hide behind "its my opinion" whenever someone attempts to critique their list.

Fuck lists. Just enjoy art, think about art, talk/write about art, and make art. Ranking art is just stupid, and it creates false dichotomies - why do hip hop and rock music or whatever need to be in conflict? If you liked more rock music than anything else this year, why is that a problem? What you like and what you listen to is nothing to apologize about if you sincerely enjoy it.

"Well, then, *critique, critique*."

"Shit, I can't say 'it's my opinion.' Uh...yeah, you're right, I will change my mind!"

"Weirdo."

but where do people claim to be authorities on music? by their actions, right--by writing about it. that's fair, but oftentimes people write about it who aren't authoritiative, maybe they just have interesting ideas or are good writers looking for their subject. I edit a music section and I use writers for whom the latter is the case, because I'm looking for strong, interesting writing more than I am authority or knowledge about music-itself. (most serious music fans can't write at all, frankly.) and in those cases the last thing they'd be likely to call themselves is "authoritative." so don't paint with too broad a brush.

as far as "why is person A's opinion any greater than person B's?"...well, this is an argument that comes up over and over again on ILx and gets a bit wearying to go over repeatedly, but here's a short answer: YOU, because you're getting so worked up over it.

I failed.

I haven't heard enough music.

I agree that could be part of the enthusiasm, but if it wasn't a cohesive album to begin with, the interest would have died after 2 weeks. Critics do not truly define what "best" is, any more than one member of the buying public can. Otherwise, how could you account for the longevity of a band like the Grateful Dead? THAT band survived on its fan base. Touch of Grey was their first hit after mega years.

(Perry to thread!)

"worked up" in the sense that you're making the same arguments/points over and over again, which would suggest that this stuff is eating at you.

"Of course there's objective worth in art. You see this painting I've just done, here by my desk? It's not as good as Rembrandt's" - M. Skidmore, some point in 2002 on a thread I have no idea how to find.

Man, this thread reminds me of an argument I had with my friend Matt back in January. The Tower Records website had posted several employees' year-end lists, and there was one dude in Chicago whose top 10 was composed almost exclusively of Def Jux and other undie hip-hop. This made Matt livid; he sent out an e-mail that basically said, "I have absolutely no time for anyone this narrow-minded about music." I suggested that perhaps he wasn't "narrow-minded" and that those really were his ten favorite albums of the year. Matt suspected that the dude just wanted to push an agenda and didn't pay attention to anything else, and this was therefore irresponsible journalism (of course, he wasn't actually a journalist, he was a record-store employee). Now, I don't know anything about whether the dude was "pushing an agenda," but even if he was, there's a certain honesty to that that I admired (Fuck it, Def Jux is the bomb!!!) -- and I'd much rather see lists that are based on personal tastes than some bland summary of what's "objectively" good. But I suppose it also really depends on what you do with these lists, the extent to which you use them as consumer guides, etc.

Talk about it, sure. But making a list I find to be quite presumptuous - for me personally anyway.
I will say "wasn't this album great." I will talk about my favorite albums..the whole ranking thing doesn't do it for me though.

"yeah, the authority bug ("I must know EVERYTHING before I can claim to know anything") will hamstring you. I like people with wildly different opinions than mine--Ned for example! and I'm quick to point out when people get facts wrong--I think that's important. but it's not the same thing as saying "your opinion is wrong.""

Well, I wouldn't ever suggest that someone's opinion was wrong...I just explaining my theory on how a critic could try to cover a wider variety of music - and we how don't end up with lists dominated by caucasian guitar players.

The misconception that it appears some people have made is that I'm some sort of hip hopist...which couldn't be further from the truth. My listening experiences may be in that area, but my belief in what makes great music is a lot more all-encompassing than that...

I totally get what yr saying here... but perhaps what I'm suggesting is that people try to broaden their horizons as far as the music they're listening to, not just in terms of exposure, but of an understanding of the cultural/blahblahblah background behind the music for a greater understanding of that music...When I first started listening to certain rock artists I was told were "great," I found them to be boring...but after listening to more and more of it, I began to understand what I wasn't getting about it before that....and it changed HOW I listened to things.

(I also suspect that Matt was worked up because he's one of those guys who listens to 100+ CDs a year and I think is proud of his "eclectic" tastes to the extent that every year he painstakingly creates his personal-best list, which he never gets done until midway through the following year, because there's still so much he NEEDS to listen to, and it all just ends up looking like a boring "critical consensus" anyway, but even though he has no aspirations to be a music writer, something riles about this Tower dude just seeming to not put in any effort in his list.)

X-post stop talking about Matt by name in case everyone assumes you're talking about me, dagnammit! ;)

Generally speaking I don't either, in fact I think few critics honestly love it. It's a method of convenience more than anything else. Also, a truly representative ranking would have the MBV entry in 72-point fonts and the final one in 12-point, to suggest a metaphor. If you are worrying solely about the idea of any ranking in general, you're not as alone as you think you are but you're also mistaking a specific example (mine) with a general situation.

I just explaining my theory on how a critic could try to cover a wider variety of music - and we how don't end up with lists dominated by caucasian guitar players.

No offense, but this is proscriptive. Consider Jaymc's words above about the Def Jux list, for example. You're not here to tell anyone how to rank or enjoy their own pleasures, but you can be here to enjoy and talk about yours. Disagree but don't mistake your disagreements with pronouncements from the mountaintop, especially if your complaint is that THAT is what you're getting from a list like mine. As Nicolars and I were trying to note, it IS all opinion, and it seems you were trying to willfully ignore that.

perhaps what I'm suggesting is that people try to broaden their horizons as far as the music they're listening to, not
just in terms of exposure, but of an understanding of the cultural/blahblahblah background behind the music for a greater understanding of that
music...

I'm sorry, you're repeating yourself. Like Matos says, you've said this and are worrying about this to death -- personally I think you've gravely mistaken what sounds to have been a particular way of discovering new joys and new approaches to listening for YOU and you alone with something that we all need. I think you really need to assume that there's an audience -- here on this board, at least -- that is not interested in being prosletyzed and is far more aware of music than you seem to think. If you don't like that analysis of your posts, reread them -- you've conveyed little else.

I know what you mean. But I think part of that is due to the immense weight that music fans put on end-of-the-year lists. You know, I spend an inordinate amount of time reading and arguing about this stuff, so when it comes time to actually making a list myself, the idea of making a Definitive Statement plagues me with self-doubt.

I sort of had an eye-opener when reading this year's Slate Movie Club, wherein various film critics (incl. Ebert) basically admit, "I just put that one on there because I thought it deserved more attention, even though it wasn't THAT great," or worse, "Eh, I might've included such-and-such but I saw it so long ago, I don't really remember how I felt about it." What struck me was the flippancy in which they made these remarks, in light of the fact that so many people cling to these lists. But then I realized, you know what? It's just a list -- an interesting way of thinking about the art you liked in a given year but also pretty arbitrary in a lot of ways and subject to whim. Which is why I now think it's better to embrace the arbitrariness and not demand that lists conform to some impossible-to-attain objectivity or even comprehensiveness.

Exactly. With all the arguing about which word is better to use, it is easy to forget the reasons you may have created the 'list' in the first place: "Hell, I really liked [x], just because...."

I will say, its easier to criticize. And I do hope to contribute more than criticism. That said, I felt as if the caucasian guitar-centricness of the list desevered note...and I'm sorry if a criticism if your list suggests that I am "prosletyz[ing]" but I disagree; I thought it was worth noting. I also tried to suggest that the reason for your list being dominated by white guitar types was not necessarily lack of exposure but a problem that I see in a lot of reviewer's perspectives on music - that they aren't willing to leave the accepted bubble of critical appreciation, even when listing their favorite albums. If you disagree, cool. Explain why. But hiding behind "ITS MY OPINION that my favorite albums are all by white guitarists" is a cop out. I can't claim to know your motivations, but I can suggest that the general reason that MOST of the people on this board, for instance, who make lists will probably have lists similar to yours (perhaps minus the high placing of the Smashing Pumpkins.) You can say that the reason is because everyone just has their own opinions, or you can suggest - as I am - that the ideal music writer studies the music from the ground up.

Urg, I'm not sure if that made sense...

I'm going to type more to this later, but I'm tired and have mono and haven't eaten in 24 hours and need to go have dinner.

There is an argument behind this, i swear. I'm spacing out.

be back later.

"yeah, it's sort of insulting to have someone come in and assume none of us know anything about the background of the kinds of music we like."

Never claimed that...its about the music you AREN'T putting on the lists that concerns me.

or even, i never heard of most of these. whats he got to say about them?

Look, I give up. I was initially making fun because I couldn't believe you were serious, but since things got calm, I now CAN believe you're serious -- and what's more, tedious. I am not going to bother being serious for much longer.

We are not your little project to figure out why we're somehow 'wrong' for being different or not drawing similar conclusions. We're not here to be studied by someone who pretends to be outside it all when you've made it perfectly clear that you've gone through certain experiences that you're now trying to transfer to everyone else in an attempt to make sense of your own past.

There is an argument behind this, i swear. I'm spacing out.

Yes, precisely. And I don't buy the mono argument or not eating or any of that at all. You're a self-righteous, stick-up-ass prig from all you've posted here -- and if you're NOT, you have done a shit job at explaining why you're not.

Ned, count to 10 ...

Demonstrate to me how you are somehow the objective, uttermost, rational standard of 'perspective' -- and why YOU are somehow given this knowledge and why you think I am not so blessed because four years ago I wrote a list and expressed some thoughts -- and I might see fit to continuing the conversation.

Otherwise, don't bother. Because as it stands, your argument is beyond unreasonable, it's simply laughable.

Let me ask you this, then -- I posted in response to your extensive list of hip-hop albums on the other thread that I had at least twelve or so of them and had heard most of the rest. I further noted that a revised list would at least have Ready to Die on it. Exactly what more do you want, then? Because you didn't respond to that observation as far as I can tell.

Here's what I'm getting at: It seems, by the content of your 136, that outside of white guitar indie rock, you have little knowledge of other music. Just like I'm trying to learn about other kinds of music, I'm asking you to do the same. You can tell me to shove it. And I have a right to tell you I think you lack perspective for that reason.

Also, somewhere a ways up there, M Matos made the interesting and astute comment that knowledgable music fans often make lousy critics. When I was editing a publication a few years back, I once solicited the most music-geekeriffic music geek I knew to write a review. This was a guy with 10s of thousands of LPs and CDs, and a deep and expansive knowledge of all kinds of music. He had formerly DJ'd a spectacular radio show, and he could talk about the stuff with great enthusiasm and articulation. But, I discovered sadly, he couldn't write. I ran the review, heavily edited, and didn't ask for another one. Obviously the ideal thing is someone who combines great knowledge with great style and wit and insight. And obviously the reason we can all recite the names of the 10 or 20 people who we think actually do that in any given field is because there are precious few of them. I'm happy just to be a hack.

You don't know the sum total of my (or others') listening experiences but you are constantly assuming you do.

You can't assume that your approach to listening to music and how you react to it is how everyone else listens and reacts, and judges.

You seem to assume there's some sort of objective -- 'honest,' to use your term -- way of thoroughly knowing everything to know about a genre before you can say or maybe even think about it.

I will and do learn about other musics not as a requirement for your standards but for my pleasure and interest.

My 136 list does not and never would say everything there is to know about my listening choices, habits and desires. It is a contextual list for one specific decade that is four years old. I might as well just assume that Chuck Eddy's original edition of Stairway to Hell in 1991 says everything HE knows and thinks about music today in 2003.

Finally, your tone is, to say it again, self-righteous. I don't care HOW you dislike the term, that is your tone. I am not here to be patronized by such statements as "Just like I'm trying to learn about other kinds of music, I'm asking you to do the same."

Fair enough.
Perhaps I'm making too much of it.
I don't see why I can't critique it though...those are all great albums, I'm just suggesting for enlargening perspective. I don't think I alone have a better perspective; but I do think that he - and myself, and everyone - could do to accept more music.

"Also ddrake haven't you considered the position that writing from a less-than-'true' knowledge of something might yield more interesting results? I'd be really interested to hear what a diehard hip-hop fan made of rock and electronic releases, because I'd think their perspective would be more refreshing. In fact this is what bugs me in the end about Top X lists - it's people writing about the stuff they already know and love and know they love, and it can get a bit cosy."

I would agree. I would like to learn more.

ddrake, I have specifically AVOIDED trotting out my entire musical history in terms of what I've listened to, what I've loved, how I've encountered music, what music I've encountered, how I encounter it now, what I like and what I don't at present, etc. I'm not going to. Because you can't accept that something which *just maybe* isn't going to be fully conveyed in a list like that exists, it seems. And I am just dumbfounded that you can't see that. Flat out dumbfounded.

This isn't quite what I mean...but there is a difference in values.
Whatever.
I'm too tired to argue this any more.
I do not intend to sound self-righteous.
Shit, I'm just tired of lists like this.
I could list 136 hip hop albums...but what would the point be?
Just like my thread on EPMD, shit would slide to the bottom and no one would pay any attention to it, because they were to busy talking about the Shins.
ugh.

"ddrake, I have specifically AVOIDED trotting out my entire musical history in terms of what I've listened to, what I've loved, how I've encountered music, what music I've encountered, how I encounter it now, what I like and what I don't at present, etc. I'm not going to. Because you can't accept that something which *just maybe* isn't going to be fully conveyed in a list like that exists, it seems. And I am just dumbfounded that you can't see that. Flat out dumbfounded."

I'm not asking you to.
Its 4 years old, I should be taking that into consideration, you're right.
But aside from that...

Here's the deal. You want to break this down to opinions, fine. I think your list is boring, monocultural, uninteresting, and conformist. You disagree, of course, and that's fine, cause its your opinion. I can't make you appreciate the same music I do. But I can bitch about the lack of appreciation for the artists I love if I want to.
I think the albums I listed deserve as much appreciation as the ones you listed, and often more.

"for dunderheadedness i think i prefer enrique.where is geir, anyway"

Fuck off.."dunderheadedness"?

they are new on def jux. where you been, man?

HAhAJahahAHAHAH!!! hilarious. Your so funny.

Is this seriously the root of the problem? My god, I don't give a flying toss about the Shins either, for instance, and neither do a good number of people posted on here. In fact if you DID post your list somewhere -- with your thoughts, your opinions, like mine if you like but do what you want to do -- you'd probably get a series of responses from a number of regulars.

Look at what Alex in NYC did -- he's someone who has also railed against the supposed hivemind of this board. But he started doing fantastic irregular posts -- a thread at a time -- on specific albums he adored. They conveyed his opinion, he discussed the specific love he had for each of them, nearly all of them got a series of responses and brief discussions going. And no, he didn't rank them at all -- they were just albums he really, really likes. Now isn't that more of a positive approach than your defeatism here? So ONE thread of yours gets ignored when you feel it shouldn't've, is that a reason to write off the board?

But I can bitch about the lack of appreciation for the artists I love if I want to.

Which is fine! But all this time you've been specifically dumping on me and me alone for somehow not being you. Why not APPRECIATE THOSE ARTISTS? Talk about 'em! Explain your love! See what others say!

What did I say above to you, after all:

You can talk about what you like from what you know. Nobody's stopping ya.

So instead of complaining that I DIDN'T write about someone or something, why aren't you writing about them? The possibilities are endless.

Haha. I already HAVE done that. I was just not quite sure why yr above the criticism of caucasian-centeredness. Or why the only answer to that criticism was "its my opinion."

ddrake, your attempt to play a race card throughout this entire set of exchanges has been beneath contempt. I therefore avoided discussing it because I couldn't believe you were seriously trying to use that and I am not going to get into such a ridiculous exchange here.

But go on, claim I'm some sort of racist fuckhead. See how far that gets you. I'm sure folks like Dan Perry and Nichole Graham would be VERY interested to see how you pull that one off.

I'll admit I was baiting you just now, but for the most part when I used the term "white" i was referring to the indie guitar-based rock that dominated the list. That was somewhat tongue in cheek.

Allow me to restate:
I was just not quite sure why yr above the criticism of indie-guitar-rock-centeredness.

There, happy?

I'm not asking you to agree with my personal list.
I'm not arguing the merits of the smashing pumpkins and how they'd relate to their position on my rhetorical "list".
I'm not saying you have to think Illmatic is better than ready to die. It was the entire way in which the list covered a very limited plain of music.
I'd have less of a problem with the list if it offered a broader perspective. That's all I'm saying.
And now I am done.

After all that talk on these two threads, this still boils down to the fact that you just can't understand that someone might have a different -- note I don't say broader or narrower but a key word you can't bring yourself to accept exists without mocking or berating it, different -- perspective and deal with things differently than you. Instead of an acceptance that such a thing might occur, you show a childish incredulity.

That's sad. Simply put.

Fair enough, if you're done, I'm done, for now at least.

And the big fuck you goes to those people making "hilarious" wise cracks and failing to make an argument of their own.

And a little misogyny:
"Now your girl is all over my dick cause I hit it from the front, HUH, the back, HUH!"
-Black moon

Yes, but lists! And how we choose them! And there's no such thing as objectivity!

How far down the list would it be on a "Best Lou Reed album list"?

At the risk of nit-picking and running the risk of becoming gaga myself, how would one attempt to achieve that empirically as opposed to just attempting to compensate for the effect of those personal factors, thereby running the risk of either under- or overcompensating; and far from being "subjectively objective", wouldn't you just be likely to end up with result that not only didn't manage to be objective but didn't even manage to be subjective?

On an intellectual level, I know that Haydn's piece was built to last, and that if it was performed well, had some kind of lasting appeal for lots of people - including me. Maybe the Beatles will turn out to be just another pop band in the history books, but to me, their stuff spoke to me in a way that I really didn't care what other people thought about it, or how it might appear in the long run.

Isn't that actually spurious i.e. just because a composition is extraordinarily complex and requires enormous technical proficiency of musicians does not necessarily mean it's good, does it?

Well, some of that I think is a misconception about classical music - yes it is complex and requires some technical ability, but that is not what makes me like a piece of music. "Musicianship", to me, is the main factor, and both cases of a good piece of pop or a well performed concerto will feature a high level of it. It does not refer to just how fast they can play or how good their intonation is, but how they are able to make this music speak, how they are able to transform notes on a page to a tangible emotional experience.

What I am getting at is a notion of something considered "good" in an objective sense being tied to its historical reputation. I believe the closest we ever get to proclaiming objective worth is to see how it has been valued over time. The subjective valuation IMO does not need to take this into consideration, as its qualities reside entirely within the individual, or moment.

Hmmmm. So, trying to avoid the purely personal stuff (and ignoring all my observations about why that's actually inherently impossible, obviously!) would you say you prefer different things as a music student / scholar than as a music listener?

If so (apologies if this sounds loaded, it's really not meant to be) do you consider one set of favourites to be somehow more valid than the other and if so why?

So to put that another way: if we factor in enough subjective opinions then statistically we should be able to negate the effects of all the individual quirks and come up with an overall result that's actually reasonably objective; is that what you're saying?

I do think that's quite persuasive and quite tempting (and quite possibly will give us something as close to an objective view as we're ever likely to get) however I still think that there are inevitably going to be things which don't pick up many votes simply because, for what ever reason, people haven't heard of them.

The only alternative to that as far as I can see is to only include the opinions of those people who have actually heard everything that might conceivably be a contender.

Unfortunately that puts us right back into the realms of elitist dogma.

Well...this is certainly how marketing works, as well as natural selection (ha, as far as I know). I guess it doesn't sound that appealing, especially to someone (like me) who usually finds himself at odds with what the rest of the world is listening to. You know how it goes, only time will tell.

Hurrah - that always works!