Pitchfork "2004: The 50 Best Albums" Tally System

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I'm not suggesting that anyone is fudging the results over there, but I can't imagine a system that could possibly assign values to all the variables it allegedly considers. I mean, is an editor's #1 record fifty times more valuable than his or her #50? Is every album of every critic's list included in the final tally? What if there's a tie? Does Schreiber's list get counted twice? (cough, the rapture, cough)... Maybe it's just my puny, liberal arts mind that can't comprehend some simple equation or whatever, but does anyone know the actual skullduggery that goes on behind the curtain? Film at eleven.

― poortheatre (poortheatre), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 22:13 (twenty years ago)

You should write a book that attempts to explain how your life has turned out such that you could possibly care about this.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 22:17 (twenty years ago)

― Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 22:21 (twenty years ago)

nabisco makes an excellent point.

― polyphonic (polyphonic), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 22:24 (twenty years ago)

I sound so mean, though. But seriously: it's never even occurred to me to wonder about this, and I theoretically have something to do with it.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 22:26 (twenty years ago)

Chris makes an excellent point.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 22:30 (twenty years ago)

Rest easy -- it's all audited by Deloitte & Touche, LLP.

― Mark (MarkR), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 22:31 (twenty years ago)

ILX IN CRITIX FIX TRIX SHOXYA! SECRET CHICAGO MUSIC WRITING CABAL PLOTS TO SWAY PUBLIC OPINION OF BANDS THAT WILL EXIST FOR 18 MONTHS AT THE OUTSIDE!

― Chris Ott (Chris Ott), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 22:35 (twenty years ago)

IIRC, the staff could assign different amounts of points to each album as they saw fit.

― sleep (sleep), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 22:41 (twenty years ago)

I already did:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1563892537/qid=1104964443/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-1934021-4881519?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

i was just wondering, cheese dicks. It's not like you couldn't say, "You should write a book that attempts to explain how your life has turned out such that you could possibly care about this," to anyone on any of these threads... re "The Ghostface Killah: Scurrilous Misogynist or Shaolin Suffragette!"

― poortheatre (poortheatre), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 22:43 (twenty years ago)

Which is to say I have x amount of points to distribute amongst my 50 favorite albums in such a way to reflect my relative opinion of each. One could give their "#1", "#2" and "#3" the same amount of points if he/she was torn between them, for example. Something like that.

― sleep (sleep), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 22:44 (twenty years ago)

ew, cheese dicks.

― polyphonic (polyphonic), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 22:49 (twenty years ago)

Sorry. I’m usually against “why do you care” responses. This one just seemed to call for it. Creepily.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 23:24 (twenty years ago)

(Part of the reason I posted it to the LOL thread was b/c it seemed so out of character!)

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 23:29 (twenty years ago)

ew, cheese dicks.

-- polyphonic (polyphoni...), January 5th, 2005.

i love you, michael

― chris andrews (fraew), Wednesday, 5 January 2005 23:44 (twenty years ago)

Poortheatre: Up until this year, we used a pretty straightforward system that, yep, did give 50x's the points to a staffer's #1 than to their #50. This year, on Plagenhoef's recommendation, we decided to try something more fun, and implemented a new system inspired by P&J.

Each contributor created a list of their 50 favorite albums of the year, ranking each accordingly. 600 points total were then distributed by the writer to their top 30 albums, with no fewer points than 10, and no more than 180, awarded to each. Anything outside the top 30 was given a pre-determined number of points (for instance, #31 and #32 were given 9 points, and on down). So yes, every album of every Pitchfork critic's list is included in the tally.

If there was a tie, the album that appeared on more lists won out. If both albums appeared on the same number of lists, the album that ranked highest on any list won out.

My list has no more or less sway than any other writer's (the Rapture won fair and square in 2003). If I'd wanted to be tyranical, there'd have been no way *in hell* Big & Rich would have come near our singles list. ;)

― Ryan Pitchfork, Wednesday, 5 January 2005 23:57 (twenty years ago)

YO YO YO RYAN SCHREIBERZ BOOYAKASHA I'M ROCKING THE MEADOWLANDS PER SECOND SECOND SECOND SECOND KEEP IT REAL KEEP UP DA FINDZ NO JOKE RESPEK

― Holy Oak, Thursday, 6 January 2005 00:02 (twenty years ago)

The system basically mirrored the pazz and jop's and was intended to reflect not only which records someone liked more than others but how strongly they felt about 'em. For LPs 1-30, points were awarded and this boosted a few records, including - and this is no secret to anyone who took even a cursory look at our individial lists - the arcade fire. It was still very close; AF barely beat out Animal Collective for No. 1. Every staffers votes counted equally. Did Ryan's favorite album end up No. 1 in part because he gave it lots of points? Well, yeah, but he had no more of an impact than say, Rob Mitchum, whose favorite ended up No. 4 in part because he gave it lots of points.

Dom already mentioned on ILx that without the points system, devendra banhart would have finished no. 1, which would have been a surprise, I think. The points also helped divisive records to which certain staffers have strong attachments, e.g. blueberry boat and a grand don't come for free; along with banhart, it also hurt dfa comp #2 (a lot), dj-kicks, and anniemal, all of which would have been in the top 10 if ballots were simply tallied on a 1-50 point scale.

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Thursday, 6 January 2005 00:09 (twenty years ago)

haha, xpost

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Thursday, 6 January 2005 00:09 (twenty years ago)

Thunder: Stolen.

― Ryan Pitchfork, Thursday, 6 January 2005 00:11 (twenty years ago)

RYAN & SCOTT: Thanks, guys. Love the site (too much, apparently).

ALL YOU OTHER BEEYOTCHES: Assholes!

― poortheatre (poortheatre), Thursday, 6 January 2005 00:13 (twenty years ago)

Yeah but there is a limited amount of harshness of that nature to spread across multiple smarmy comments, and nabisco's is particularly effective because he gave it lots of points. If I hadn't wasted many of my points saying "fuck all y'all" to everyone over on ILE in the racist belt thread, you might have been calling me a cheese dick instead of nabisco.

― martin m. (mushrush), Thursday, 6 January 2005 00:17 (twenty years ago)

ALL YOU OTHER BEEYOTCHES: Assholes!

Ooooooh. Now it's ON!

Let me know when you get out of college so we can look back on this and laugh... at you.

― martin m. (mushrush), Thursday, 6 January 2005 00:19 (twenty years ago)

NO DISS OR NUFFIN 4 REALZ BOND
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABY
SOMETHINGZ RIGHT DIS IS NOT WHA YOU PLANNED
FUCK DA HATAZ
SAFE RESPEK

― Holy Oak, Thursday, 6 January 2005 00:19 (twenty years ago)

hm. i thought that by using the words "cheese dicks" and "beeyotches" i was making it obvious that i wasn't actually pissed. oh well.

― poortheatre (poortheatre), Thursday, 6 January 2005 00:22 (twenty years ago)

Seriously, though, guys, that photo in the Sun-Times? :) :) :)

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 6 January 2005 00:24 (twenty years ago)

I thought saying "Now it's ON!" was making it obvious that I wasn't actually pissed either. Perhaps I took it one step too far... Wouldn't be the first time. Anyhow... ;)

― martin m. (mushrush), Thursday, 6 January 2005 00:29 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.