Who is Henrik Franzon?
I'm a Swedish, 39-year old statistician, whose interest in critics lists started in 1994, when I read Pop's list of the 100 best albums in the world. I started to rank albums based on lists in Swedish magazines. Soon thereafter I discovered Julian's rock lists with lists from all over the world. Full of enthusiasm I continued to compile "ultimate" lists, but it was hard to find a method that gave a fair result. For example, I didn't want the UK records to overtake records from other parts of the world just because I included a new list from a UK magazine, and how would I compare new records (with no chance to be included in older lists) with older ones?
As my programming skills increased in the late 1990s, I began working on a program that would adjust for all the factors I had in mind. In year 2000 I started working on this website, and in September 2001 it was up and running.
Here is a link to my own top 100 albums of all time. I think the list says as much as anything else about my musical taste.
I'm also very interested in film, and I practise the tough and intellectual sport orienteering, a sport which is most popular in the Nordic countries.
Which lists have been included for the compilation of the Acclaimed Music lists?
Almost all critics lists I have got my hand on, including best-of-year lists, best-of-all-times lists etc., from critics, artists and music industry people all over the world. Lists by people who work with music. However, end of year lists from single critics are not included as it would take way too much time to add them and genre-specific lists are only included if they are from a magazine specialised in this genre. Readers lists of all kind are excluded.
How have the lists been compiled?
Instead of giving albums a set of points every time they appear in a critics' list (which would be a huge disadvantage for new albums that had no chance to appear in older all-time lists), I match all albums against each other in pairs. In the "match-ups", the critics' lists are weighted depending on several factors, such as
1. Similarities with the overall Acclaimed Music list (a critics' list with mostly unacclaimed albums gets a low value for this weighting parameter).
2. When the list was presented (newer lists get higher values for this weighting parameter).
3. The overall number of critics' lists included at Acclaimed Music from different regions of the world. A critics' list from a region with a relatively large number of critics' lists at Acclaimed Music (relative to both the region's population and the number of artists at Acclaimed Music) gets a low value for this weighting parameter.
All match-ups are summarized into a score for each album. This score is then adjusted due which opponents the album has been matched against. As it usually takes a while for albums to reach "classic" status and appear in critics' all time lists, new albums (which mostly have been matched against other new albums in the end of year lists) tend to have low "opponent values".
How has your own music taste affected the result of the compiled lists?
Not at all. So please don't blame me for the fact that Judas Priest's "Sad Wings of Destiny" is not in the top 3000.
Why are there no compilation albums?
I have excluded all "greatest hits" and "best of" albums, since they are generally not included in the critics lists. If I included compilation albums they would not be placed as high as they probably should.
Is Acclaimed Music the final word of the best albums and songs in rock history?
There is no final word. We all have our own favourites, and our musical taste changes over the years. The Acclaimed Music lists also change every time new critics lists are included so ther will never be a definitive list.