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.

"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!