IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

irreduciblekoan
Different Class
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:48 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by irreduciblekoan »

Indeed, what Chilton pointed out. I've always paid more attention to the albums-based artist list more than the overall ones. Yes, I agree that singles have too much weight, but fortunately Henrik already provided a way out of that.
User avatar
Bruce
Feeling Good
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce »

irreduciblekoan wrote:Indeed, what Chilton pointed out. I've always paid more attention to the albums-based artist list more than the overall ones. Yes, I agree that singles have too much weight, but fortunately Henrik already provided a way out of that.
It's not "singles," it's "songs." There are plenty of items on the "songs" list that were not "singles."
JR
Rust Never Sleeps
Posts: 667
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:54 pm

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by JR »

it's great to have both albums and songs artist lists, to see where one especially fares well.

For the albums and songs lists, I gather that, unlike the overall-artist list, everything is counted, and not just an act's top 15?
User avatar
Henrik
Site Admin
Posts: 6439
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Henrik »

JR wrote:For the albums and songs lists, I gather that, unlike the overall-artist list, everything is counted, and not just an act's top 15?
No, it's the same.
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.
User avatar
Bruce
Feeling Good
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce »

Henrik wrote:
JR wrote:For the albums and songs lists, I gather that, unlike the overall-artist list, everything is counted, and not just an act's top 15?
No, it's the same.
Why only count the top 15?
irreduciblekoan
Different Class
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:48 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by irreduciblekoan »

Bruce wrote:
irreduciblekoan wrote:Indeed, what Chilton pointed out. I've always paid more attention to the albums-based artist list more than the overall ones. Yes, I agree that singles have too much weight, but fortunately Henrik already provided a way out of that.
It's not "singles," it's "songs." There are plenty of items on the "songs" list that were not "singles."
Yeah, that's what I meant. The majority of the songs on AM are singles (though expanding it to 6000 has made that less so), which makes me think of it interchangeably between a singles and songs list, but I am aware that many album tracks are included.

Anyway, to get back to previous complaints about the artist list and the rankings of classic artists, peteevans and Jonathon would be glad to know that on the albums-based list, Steely Dan is 56th, Frank Zappa is 50th, Captain Beefheart is 55th, Pavement is 70th, Husker Du is 86th, and Brian Eno is 49th. In other words, all rightfully in the top 100 artists. And the Arctic Monkeys drop out of the top 100, and Phoenix drops to 425th (ouch).

I will have to disagree with Jonathon about Arctic Monkeys though. I loved their first two albums and thought the rest were solid to excellent. I don't consider AM a comeback, I thought they were always one of the better and more consistent indie acts of the 2000s. Their 113th ranking (albums list) testifies to this, as they are one of the higher 2000s-based acts on the list.
User avatar
Bruce
Feeling Good
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce »

irreduciblekoan wrote:The majority of the songs on AM are singles
That's because MOST of the greatest songs of all time were hit singles.
User avatar
Bruce
Feeling Good
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce »

Another problem is that the top acts on the albums list are predominantly made up of white guitar oriented acts while the songs list is much more diversified.
User avatar
Blanco
Rust Never Sleeps
Posts: 711
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:25 am
Location: Mexico City
Contact:

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Blanco »

Bruce wrote:Another problem is that the top acts on the albums list are predominantly made up of white guitar oriented acts while the songs list is much more diversified.
Image
Shame on you, white guitars.
User avatar
Bruce
Feeling Good
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce »

Blanco wrote:
Bruce wrote:Another problem is that the top acts on the albums list are predominantly made up of white guitar oriented acts while the songs list is much more diversified.
Shame on you, white guitars.
LOL...good one.
User avatar
Henrik
Site Admin
Posts: 6439
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Henrik »

Henrik wrote:Thanks for reminding me about the way the artist ranking is calculated. I changed it so that it now takes the top 15 albums and top 15 songs into account, with a constant decrease in weight.

15*album1+14*album2+13*album3+...+2*album14+1*album15 + 15*song1+14*song2+13*song3+...+2*song14 + 1*song15

where album1, album2,..., song1, song2, etc. = ln(ln(10+alltime place))

For albums not in the top 3000, the value 3011 was assigned.
For songs not in the top 6000, the value 6011 was assigned.
I have no idea why I chose the +011...

Yeah, it's very complicated. Especially for a ranking that shouldn't be taken as gospel :whistle:
I actually looked at the wrong numbers and the 3011 and 6011 values were not used. The assigned values are instead 3100 and 6100. I'm not sure they make much more sense, but at least they are somewhat round numbers...
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.
Jirin
Running Up That Hill
Posts: 3350
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:12 am

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Jirin »

Great to see a vast majority of the big increases be well deserved. The National, Sleater-Kinney, Wilco, the best alt-rock bands of the 2000s are up across the board and Silent Shout cracks the top 300.
User avatar
BleuPanda
Higher Ground
Posts: 4717
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am
Location: Urbana, IL

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by BleuPanda »

While I think songs might have gained a bit too much weight due to the combined effects of equal weighting and a bigger default number with 6100, I'm happy that the change allowed my favorite band to reach #38 on the artist list.
User avatar
JimmyJazz
Shake Some Action
Posts: 1296
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:28 am
Location: Arizona

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by JimmyJazz »

Much praise to you, Henrik, and all of the long hard work you put into this wonderful site!

Interesting update, both for the better and for the worse, in my opinion. I happen to share Jirin's general views on Kanye, and feel pretty uneasy seeing him rank higher than many other all-time, long established greats on the artist list. I am not convinced he has been completely canonized yet, and I still firmly feel he is simply a big act of the moment who will drop once he produces more lackluster work, and the media's love affair with him comes to an end, as I don't care what anyone says, that is a clearly major reason he receives such acclaim currently (was quite taken aback at the acclaim for Yeezus, which I thought was definitely inferior to MBDTF, and this is coming from a naysayer.)

Regarding the discussion of the inclusion of EOY lists, I definitely have to side with the anti side of that argument. I strongly disagree with the point made by Nassim that decade lists would have to be removed if you were to remove EOY lists, as these lists still have 10 years worth of hindsight in them. For me, personally, TSPDT's approach is better in this regard. EOY lists are far too limited in scope to factor into an all-time list. I am also very curious about how they are weighed. I know Henrik you always say that they are weighed much lower, but what about irreduciblekoan's point about the Frank Ocean album being in the Top 150 in the 2013 update without being on any all-time lists at that time?

I honestly wouldn't mind seeing a version of the album and song lists without EOY lists, and honestly ratings from record guides too, included (and I am not referring to the Marsh or other encyclopedia style books that are basically all-time lists divided into years). I am not asking for the current list to be scrapped of course, but if there was just a excel/PDF of the list in the format I am talking about, I would be quite interested, just for the sake of comparing. Of course, that would be too much hard work, so don't mind this point.

Finally, as for the points about songs and albums acts, they all have their merits guys, no need to get into a dispute about it! I admire both mediums, and I honestly don't see why either should be given more weight than the other on the artist list. Dismissing song acts does a great disservice to the older greats like Armstrong or Holiday, two of my all-time favorites, who obviously missed the album era to begin with, and are usually represented, on jazz lists specifically, by large and lengthy comp albums that span their entire careers (I'm not discussing cheesy greatest hits albums in this regard). Vice versa for album acts if you weight it the other way.
User avatar
BleuPanda
Higher Ground
Posts: 4717
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am
Location: Urbana, IL

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by BleuPanda »

My solution to the issue, since I've been ripping off the old formulas for my own personal use, is to give albums more weight, but also factor in less of them. I expect a great band to produce 3-5 great albums with more being a bonus, but with each of those albums I expect at least 2 or 3 great songs. So I do something like rank their top 6ish albums and their top 12 songs.
User avatar
BleuPanda
Higher Ground
Posts: 4717
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am
Location: Urbana, IL

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by BleuPanda »

JimmyJazz wrote:Regarding the discussion of the inclusion of EOY lists, I definitely have to side with the anti side of that argument. I strongly disagree with the point made by Nassim that decade lists would have to be removed if you were to remove EOY lists, as these lists still have 10 years worth of hindsight in them. For me, personally, TSPDT's approach is better in this regard. EOY lists are far too limited in scope to factor into an all-time list. I am also very curious about how they are weighed. I know Henrik you always say that they are weighed much lower, but what about irreduciblekoan's point about the Frank Ocean album being in the Top 150 in the 2013 update without being on any all-time lists at that time?
I think the most important thing to consider is, what is the purpose of this website? I come here to get music recommendations from all eras. If we throw out EOY lists, the list is going to get pretty static and boring, and I'm pretty sure I'd stop seriously using it. I can barely take TSPDT seriously because of how regressive it is. There's always going to be a limit to the accuracy of these lists, and I think Henrik has found the best method of getting fairly equal representation. There's always going to be information missing, so might as well go the way that shows more specific details, especially if it leads to a wider array of diversity.
User avatar
Henrik
Site Admin
Posts: 6439
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Henrik »

Bruce wrote:
Henrik wrote:
JR wrote:For the albums and songs lists, I gather that, unlike the overall-artist list, everything is counted, and not just an act's top 15?
No, it's the same.
Why only count the top 15?
I actually used only 6 albums and songs when I started the website. Then 10 and now 15, but with decreasing weights. I know you disagree with me about this Bruce, but the reason is that I don't think long careers should be rewarded much. For example, who cares if The Rolling Stones makes another half-acclaimed album. They have just been around for a very long time. Very few people who prefer Rolling Stones over Beatles, do this because Rolling Stones continued after their peak.

My introduction to the artist list:
"The artist ranking is simply a summary of the positions of the artists' most acclaimed albums and songs. Other aspects (e.g. live performances) are not counted for, so this artist ranking should not be taken too seriously.

If you think albums are more important than songs, or vice versa, then use the top 200 artist lists based on albums or songs alone."

The word "most" is there to reflect the cut after 15 albums and songs. But since the list is "simply a summary of the positions", it would perhaps make sense to include all albums and songs. I will think about that.
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.
User avatar
Bruce
Feeling Good
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce »

Henrik wrote:I know you disagree with me about this Bruce, but the reason is that I don't think long careers should be rewarded much.
I think you're 100% wrong about this.

Now I see why so many modern acts have cracked the top artist lists. You are penalizing long career acts based solely on your OPINION expressed above. Of course long careers should be rewarded. A half acclaimed album is much better than no album at all. 10 half acclaimed songs are twice as good as 5 half acclaimed songs.

EVERY acclaimed item by each act should be given the same equal weight. THEN you'd have a reasonable all time artist list.
User avatar
Listyguy
Running Up That Hill
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:34 pm

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Listyguy »

Maybe we can put it in a larger font:
"This artist ranking should not be taken too seriously"
User avatar
BleuPanda
Higher Ground
Posts: 4717
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am
Location: Urbana, IL

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by BleuPanda »

I mean, someone keeps bringing up Sex Pistols and Steely Dan, and as someone who doesn't care much about either, I definitely hear a lot more about Sex Pistols' single album and their few hits than the entirety of Steely Dan's catalogue. Different artists have different forms of success. And just like I think Nick Cave deserves credit for managing to stay at the top of his game for decades, I also think Joy Division and Nirvana deserve just as much if not more for managing to have such a heavy impact in an incredibly short amount of time. A single great album and a few hit singles can go a long, long way.
User avatar
Henrik
Site Admin
Posts: 6439
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Henrik »

JimmyJazz wrote:I honestly wouldn't mind seeing a version of the album and song lists without EOY lists
Sorry, but I am strongly against this, so it will never happen.
JimmyJazz wrote:what about irreduciblekoan's point about the Frank Ocean album being in the Top 150 in the 2013 update without being on any all-time lists at that time?
Ratings from Metacritic and Allmusic showed that 2012 were on a similar level with other recent years, so I think it makes sense that the 2012 list had a similar distribution to 2011, 2010,... On top of that, "Channel Orange" was unusually superior in the eoy lists for 2012, and therefore it makes sense to me that it topped the 2010s list and made the top 150 of all time in the previous update.
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.
User avatar
Bruce
Feeling Good
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce »

Listyguy wrote:Maybe we can put it in a larger font:
"This artist ranking should not be taken too seriously"
If it was done with a more sound mathematical formula is COULD be taken more seriously.

Right now it's essentially about which acts have the most acclaimed peak rather than the most acclaimed entire career. And it favors modern acts over older acts that did not make albums or did not concentrate in albums in the eras where albums were not veru significant.
Last edited by Bruce on Mon Jul 28, 2014 8:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Romain
Happy Up Here
Posts: 5431
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:25 pm
Location: Lyon, France

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Romain »

Seriously Bruce, saying these things... you... THE guy who judge anything only by his OPINION, always, everyday... is no more funny.

Where do all these people come from... unable to understand the subjectivity in art.... they all appeared in your path Bruce, it's strange!

BleuPanda said : "I come here to get music recommendations from all eras"... and I think it's the only important thing with these lists. Whatever your favorite artist is in the 52th or the 115th position... he is here and it's all.
User avatar
Henrik
Site Admin
Posts: 6439
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Henrik »

Listyguy wrote:Maybe we can put it in a larger font:
"This artist ranking should not be taken too seriously"
Thanks again, to you Listyguy this time.
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.
User avatar
Bruce
Feeling Good
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce »

BleuPanda wrote:I definitely hear a lot more about Sex Pistols' single album
It's HARDLY an album. 7 of the 12 songs had been released on singles prior to the album finally being thrown together. Some songs on that "album" were over a year old already.
User avatar
JimmyJazz
Shake Some Action
Posts: 1296
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:28 am
Location: Arizona

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by JimmyJazz »

BleuPanda wrote:
JimmyJazz wrote:Regarding the discussion of the inclusion of EOY lists, I definitely have to side with the anti side of that argument. I strongly disagree with the point made by Nassim that decade lists would have to be removed if you were to remove EOY lists, as these lists still have 10 years worth of hindsight in them. For me, personally, TSPDT's approach is better in this regard. EOY lists are far too limited in scope to factor into an all-time list. I am also very curious about how they are weighed. I know Henrik you always say that they are weighed much lower, but what about irreduciblekoan's point about the Frank Ocean album being in the Top 150 in the 2013 update without being on any all-time lists at that time?
I think the most important thing to consider is, what is the purpose of this website? I come here to get music recommendations from all eras. If we throw out EOY lists, the list is going to get pretty static and boring, and I'm pretty sure I'd stop seriously using it. I can barely take TSPDT seriously because of how regressive it is. There's always going to be a limit to the accuracy of these lists, and I think Henrik has found the best method of getting fairly equal representation. There's always going to be information missing, so might as well go the way that shows more specific details, especially if it leads to a wider array of diversity.
"Can barely take it seriously"? That's a little over the top, if you ask me. I happen to come to these sites to see what are the most critically acclaimed, important, or just biggest works in a particular medium, aka the ones that have stood the test of time. They basically are supposed to be meta-lists and recommendation lists. If you dislike TSPDT's list so much, go ahead and email Bill Georgaris, who runs the site, and tell him to include EOY lists in the list. I will probably not take it seriously if they ever did that.
User avatar
Bruce
Feeling Good
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce »

Romain wrote:Seriously Bruce, saying these things... you... THE guy who judge anything only by his OPINION, always, everyday... is no more funny.

Where do all these people come from... unable to understand the subjectivity in art.... they all appeared in your path Bruce, it's strange!

BleuPanda said : "I come here to get music recommendations from all eras"... and I think it's the only important thing with these lists. Whatever your favorite artist is in the 52th or the 115th position... he is here and it's all.
Maybe you think that Henrik should just pick all of the rankings out of a hat.
User avatar
Listyguy
Running Up That Hill
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:34 pm

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Listyguy »

Bruce wrote:
Romain wrote:Seriously Bruce, saying these things... you... THE guy who judge anything only by his OPINION, always, everyday... is no more funny.

Where do all these people come from... unable to understand the subjectivity in art.... they all appeared in your path Bruce, it's strange!

BleuPanda said : "I come here to get music recommendations from all eras"... and I think it's the only important thing with these lists. Whatever your favorite artist is in the 52th or the 115th position... he is here and it's all.
Maybe you think that Henrik should just pick all of the rankings out of a hat.
Maybe he should just ask you, since you clearly have the most knowledge of music out of anyone on this site.
peteevans
Start Me Up
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 11:34 am

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by peteevans »

Perhaps it would be a good idea to take out thé artists list and just have the separate singles and albums lists ?
For me a depth of an artist's greatness is the quality of their albums eg Abba simply cannot compare in depth of recording quality to the likes of Joni Mitchell ! One final thing that surprises me and I have said this before is that for me you should count the albums standing on the number of points they achieve so if for example the sex pistols had the number one album of all time but no other entry in the tip 3000 they get 3000 points and Joni Mitchell has five entries at various positions then those points are added together. So for example if her top album was number 300 she would get 2700 points and if her next was number 1000 that would add another 2000 points etc. This would surely get you the true reflection of an artist's overall contribution and consistency over their career as opposed to the pistols being given a higher rating purely on the strength of just one album ?
User avatar
Bruce
Feeling Good
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce »

Listyguy wrote:
Bruce wrote:
Romain wrote:Seriously Bruce, saying these things... you... THE guy who judge anything only by his OPINION, always, everyday... is no more funny.

Where do all these people come from... unable to understand the subjectivity in art.... they all appeared in your path Bruce, it's strange!

BleuPanda said : "I come here to get music recommendations from all eras"... and I think it's the only important thing with these lists. Whatever your favorite artist is in the 52th or the 115th position... he is here and it's all.
Maybe you think that Henrik should just pick all of the rankings out of a hat.
Maybe he should just ask you, since you clearly have the most knowledge of music out of anyone on this site.
What he should do is ask me how to compile the artist rankings more fairly, without his own prejudice against long careers affecting things.
User avatar
Bruce
Feeling Good
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce »

peteevans wrote:Perhaps it would be a good idea to take out thé artists list and just have the separate singles and albums lists ?
For me a depth of an artist's greatness is the quality of their albums eg Abba simply cannot compare in depth of recording quality to the likes of Joni Mitchell !
Opposite. Abba's total output pisses all over Joni Mitchell's. That's why Abba was offered a billi0on dollars to do a tour. Most of the listeners in the world prefer listening to a mix of songs rather than full albums.

peteevans wrote: One final thing that surprises me and I have said this before is that for me you should count the albums standing on the number of points they achieve so if for example the sex pistols had the number one album of all time but no other entry in the tip 3000 they get 3000 points and Joni Mitchell has five entries at various positions then those points are added together. So for example if her top album was number 300 she would get 2700 points and if her next was number 1000 that would add another 2000 points etc. This would surely get you the true reflection of an artist's overall contribution and consistency over their career as opposed to the pistols being given a higher rating purely on the strength of just one album ?
Your idea is good here although your method for achieving it is flawed.
User avatar
Listyguy
Running Up That Hill
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:34 pm

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Listyguy »

Bruce wrote: What he should do is ask me how to compile the artist rankings more fairly, without his own prejudice against long careers affecting things.
Because you aren't prejudiced against anything, right?
User avatar
Romain
Happy Up Here
Posts: 5431
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:25 pm
Location: Lyon, France

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Romain »

Bruce wrote:
Romain wrote:Seriously Bruce, saying these things... you... THE guy who judge anything only by his OPINION, always, everyday... is no more funny.

Where do all these people come from... unable to understand the subjectivity in art.... they all appeared in your path Bruce, it's strange!

BleuPanda said : "I come here to get music recommendations from all eras"... and I think it's the only important thing with these lists. Whatever your favorite artist is in the 52th or the 115th position... he is here and it's all.
Maybe you think that Henrik should just pick all of the rankings out of a hat.
For the thousand time, you don't understand... or you don't want to understand : It's not your message, it's how you do it. Nassim perfectly said that today. But you still be rude and patronizing.

Enjoy this totally free and funny source of albums and songs.
Nick
Running Up That Hill
Posts: 3115
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:28 pm
Location: New York State

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Nick »

JimmyJazz wrote:
Interesting update, both for the better and for the worse, in my opinion. I happen to share Jirin's general views on Kanye, and feel pretty uneasy seeing him rank higher than many other all-time, long established greats on the artist list. I am not convinced he has been completely canonized yet, and I still firmly feel he is simply a big act of the moment who will drop once he produces more lackluster work, and the media's love affair with him comes to an end, as I don't care what anyone says, that is a clearly major reason he receives such acclaim currently (was quite taken aback at the acclaim for Yeezus, which I thought was definitely inferior to MBDTF, and this is coming from a naysayer.)
The way I see it is that either Kanye or his PR team have successfully managed to trick nearly every single music critic at every single major publication in the western world into thinking that he music is good, or those critics are legitimate fans of his work.

And if media attention was such a big factor in his acclaim, why aren't we seeing the same sort of acclaim for Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Rihanna, Justin Bieber, etc.?
User avatar
Bruce
Feeling Good
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce »

Listyguy wrote:
Bruce wrote: What he should do is ask me how to compile the artist rankings more fairly, without his own prejudice against long careers affecting things.
Because you aren't prejudiced against anything, right?
Not when it comes to math.
User avatar
PlasticRam
Into the Groove
Posts: 2202
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:51 am

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by PlasticRam »

Sure Captain Beefheart is a little low now, but I think the artist list is a very good thing to have still. If it was just the artist pages separately, that would take the "fun" out of this site a little bit.

Not complaining about Kanye being nr. 23 though :whistle:

But still, even if Kanye was like number 45 with his current songs and albums somehow, I still would think the artist list is a good summary.
Last edited by PlasticRam on Mon Jul 28, 2014 8:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I feel like that
User avatar
Bruce
Feeling Good
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce »

You can make a good argument to not even include anything on an all time list until it has been around for at least 5 years, or maybe even 10 years. This is why the baseball hall of fame does not vote on a player's candidacy until they have been retired for 5 years. It takes time for historical perspective to sink in.
User avatar
Henrik
Site Admin
Posts: 6439
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Henrik »

JimmyJazz wrote:I happen to come to these sites to see what are the most critically acclaimed, important, or just biggest works in a particular medium, aka the ones that have stood the test of time.
This is where we differ, Jimmy. Rather than aiming to present what albums have stood the test of the time, I aim to present what albums are most recommended so far of their lifetime. To me that's far more interesting. I hope we can agree to disagree.
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.
User avatar
BleuPanda
Higher Ground
Posts: 4717
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am
Location: Urbana, IL

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by BleuPanda »

JimmyJazz wrote:
BleuPanda wrote:
JimmyJazz wrote:Regarding the discussion of the inclusion of EOY lists, I definitely have to side with the anti side of that argument. I strongly disagree with the point made by Nassim that decade lists would have to be removed if you were to remove EOY lists, as these lists still have 10 years worth of hindsight in them. For me, personally, TSPDT's approach is better in this regard. EOY lists are far too limited in scope to factor into an all-time list. I am also very curious about how they are weighed. I know Henrik you always say that they are weighed much lower, but what about irreduciblekoan's point about the Frank Ocean album being in the Top 150 in the 2013 update without being on any all-time lists at that time?
I think the most important thing to consider is, what is the purpose of this website? I come here to get music recommendations from all eras. If we throw out EOY lists, the list is going to get pretty static and boring, and I'm pretty sure I'd stop seriously using it. I can barely take TSPDT seriously because of how regressive it is. There's always going to be a limit to the accuracy of these lists, and I think Henrik has found the best method of getting fairly equal representation. There's always going to be information missing, so might as well go the way that shows more specific details, especially if it leads to a wider array of diversity.
"Can barely take it seriously"? That's a little over the top, if you ask me. I happen to come to these sites to see what are the most critically acclaimed, important, or just biggest works in a particular medium, aka the ones that have stood the test of time. They basically are supposed to be meta-lists and recommendation lists. If you dislike TSPDT's list so much, go ahead and email Bill Georgaris, who runs the site, and tell him to include EOY lists in the list. I will probably not take it seriously if they ever did that.
Eh, I don't know if he needs to include EOY lists, but the fact he mentions including a list from 1952 in his breakdown of sources reveals the flaws. He's literally incorporating a list created over 60 years ago for a medium that was only really around at that point for 37 years (if going from Birth of a Nation). After a certain point, all time lists become useless, and he doesn't seem to be taking the proper steps in removing outdated sources.
User avatar
Bruce
Feeling Good
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce »

Henrik wrote:
JimmyJazz wrote:I happen to come to these sites to see what are the most critically acclaimed, important, or just biggest works in a particular medium, aka the ones that have stood the test of time.
This is where we differ, Jimmy. Rather than aiming to present what albums have stood the test of the time, I aim to present what albums are most recommended so far of their lifetime. To me that's far more interesting. I hope we can agree to disagree.
It means much more if an album is highly recommended for decades than if it's really highly recommended for months are a year. To me that's much more interesting....which albums (and songs) have remained highly recommended for decades.
User avatar
PlasticRam
Into the Groove
Posts: 2202
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:51 am

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by PlasticRam »

And like even if 2010-2013 releases are kind of high, they're still nothing compared to the 60s or 70s releases. I think this site has a really good balance.
I feel like that
User avatar
Bruce
Feeling Good
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce »

BleuPanda wrote:
Eh, I don't know if he needs to include EOY lists, but the fact he mentions including a list from 1952 in his breakdown of sources reveals the flaws. He's literally incorporating a list created over 60 years ago for a medium that was only really around at that point for 37 years (if going from Birth of a Nation). After a certain point, all time lists become useless, and he doesn't seem to be taking the proper steps in removing outdated sources.
That depends. Are you saying that all that matters is which films are thought of NOW as the best?

Are you saying that when a famous movie critic dies all of his ratings should be deleted from the calculations?
User avatar
Bruce
Feeling Good
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce »

PlasticRam wrote:And like even if 2010-2013 releases are kind of high, they're still nothing compared to the 60s or 70s releases. I think this site has a really good balance.
Pre 1960s releases are criminally unrepresented.

There's only 75 songs from the 1930s in the top 6000. Do you really think the 1930s only had 1.25% of the greatest recordings of all time?
User avatar
JimmyJazz
Shake Some Action
Posts: 1296
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:28 am
Location: Arizona

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by JimmyJazz »

BleuPanda wrote:
JimmyJazz wrote:"Can barely take it seriously"? That's a little over the top, if you ask me. I happen to come to these sites to see what are the most critically acclaimed, important, or just biggest works in a particular medium, aka the ones that have stood the test of time. They basically are supposed to be meta-lists and recommendation lists. If you dislike TSPDT's list so much, go ahead and email Bill Georgaris, who runs the site, and tell him to include EOY lists in the list. I will probably not take it seriously if they ever did that.
Eh, I don't know if he needs to include EOY lists, but the fact he mentions including a list from 1952 in his breakdown of sources reveals the flaws. He's literally incorporating a list created over 60 years ago for a medium that was only really around at that point for 37 years (if going from Birth of a Nation). After a certain point, all time lists become useless, and he doesn't seem to be taking the proper steps in removing outdated sources.
[/quote]

Dude, you realize he himself has admitted that the older a list is, it is weighted lower anyways. It is "useless"? Well, we will have to disagree then. When a site is able to use the ballots of filmmakers like Orson Welles and Michael Powell, I would hardly call that "useless" just because of their age.
User avatar
Listyguy
Running Up That Hill
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:34 pm

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Listyguy »

This thread is no longer about the update. It has turned into a TSPDT-bashing and a Henrik's-formula-scrutinizer
User avatar
Henrik
Site Admin
Posts: 6439
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Henrik »

If AM would show what albums have best stood the test of time, then what about albums that were used to be seen as they stood the test of the time well, but nowadays less so? Should such albums still be higher than albums that are highly acclaimed, but have only been judged for a couple of years?
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.
User avatar
Henrik
Site Admin
Posts: 6439
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Henrik »

Henrik wrote:If AM would show what albums have best stood the test of time, then what about albums that were used to be seen as they stood the test of the time well, but nowadays less so? Should such albums still be higher than albums that are highly acclaimed, but have only been judged for a couple of years?
I guess what I wanted to say was that which works that will "stand the test of the time" can never be written in stone either.
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.
User avatar
Bruce
Feeling Good
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce »

Henrik wrote:If AM would show what albums have best stood the test of time, then what about albums that were used to be seen as they stood the test of the time well, but nowadays less so? Should such albums still be higher than albums that are highly acclaimed, but have only been judged for a couple of years?
That's a difficult question to answer. This is why perhaps items should not be added into all time lists until they have been around for a minimum of 5 years.

In any field (sports, acting, music, politics) there are new stars that people want to anoint as the greatest ever when they first show up, but many times they are not able to sustain greatness for very long.
User avatar
Bruce
Feeling Good
Posts: 1232
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:36 am
Location: New Jersey

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Bruce »

Let me just say that it's interesting to debate these topics, but that's not to say that I don't really appreciate all of Henrik's work here because I do.
User avatar
Mattceinicram
Different Class
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 8:26 am
Location: Indiana when home. Minneapolis, Minnesota during college

Re: IT HAS HAPPENED: Update 2014 Thread

Post by Mattceinicram »

Wow thanks for all the hard work you do Henrik! This update is fantastic. It might take some getting use to seeing so many ranked songs. Quick question about that though. Since it has been expanded to a top 6,000 songs, it appears more songs may have been added to the bubbling under as well, is this correct?
Check out my music review blog! Matt and Music! mattandmusic.blogspot.com
Post Reply

Return to “Music, Music, Music...”