Who is Henrik Franzon?

I'm a Swedish, 34-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. Personal critics lists have been omitted with the exception of lists published in books and special essays in magazines, like Elvis Costello's in Vanity Fair. However, since some of the Acclaimed Music single lists are poorly substantiated, I also include single lists (not by-year lists) by well-experienced music critics (e.g. Michaelangelo Matos' lists of the top 100 singles from the 70s, 80s and 90s) which are not in print but on the web. Genre-specific best-of-lists are only included if they are from a magazine specialised in this genre. Readers lists of all kind have been omitted.


Why are not readers lists included?

Simply to achieve a homogenous result. Critics lists and readers lists are in general quite different, the readers lists usually lean much more towards new records. If critics lists and readers lists were put together, there would not be a clear interpretation of the result. Would it be the opinion of the whole world's music listening population? Maybe, but I doubt that. Furthermore, the combined result from votes by both critics and readers has already been presented in an excellent way (for example the Virgin top 1000 albums and the All Time Top 100 Albums by Martijn Boeren).


How have the lists been compiled?

This is really not simple to explain. Please do not despair if you do not fully understand...

I have written a program which computes the lists. The basic idea is that I match all records against each other in pairs. In a match, each critics list is weighted depending on
* the number of lists I have from different parts of world (USA, UK or the rest of the world)
** when the list was presented (newer lists are weighted more heavily)
*** how many matches the list is a part of (a list which only embraces a few years is not part of many matches and is therefore weighted heavily in the matches where it is included).

To be able to compare new records (which only exist on best-of-year-lists) with older records, I have put together best-of-year-list from the same magazine, e.g. the #1 record on NME's best-of-year-list of 2001 beats not only the other records from year 2001, but also #2, #3... from older NME's best-of-year-lists. Of course with less weight in each match (see *** above).

The weight of a list when one of the records is outside the list depends on which records that are included in the list. The more records that are included among my pick of 30 recordings from each year, the heavier weight.

If a record is preferred over the opponent in at least 75% of all critics lists (after weighting each list) where at least one of the two records have been listed, the record gets a maximum match point and the opponent gets no match point. If the 2 records are preferred in 25-75% of the critics lists, the maximum match point is shared between the 2 records.

I thereafter weight all matches due to the number of lists that are included in each match (it is more important to have a high match point in a match based on many lists). All records get a score between 0 and 1000 (a record with maximum match point in each match would get the score 1000). The score is then corrected due which opponents a record has been matched against. This is because the critical acclaim of rock music differs between years (in most of the all-time-lists the majority of the records are from the 70's or earlier). If the mean score of the opponents is above average, the corrected sum score becomes slightly greater and vice versa.


How has your own music taste affected the result of the compiled lists?

Not at all. So please don't blame me for the omission of Judas Priest's "Sad Wings of Destiny".


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. Thus, compilation albums would definitely be biased towards a poor result in the Acclaimed Music lists.


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 will also change when new critics lists are included.