Alternative artists list
- Henrik
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6440
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
- Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
Alternative artists list
There have been many suggestions that that the albums list should be weighted higher the songs list, for the artists list. Arguments: Each album include several songs, it is more a work of art, there are more critics' lists of albums than songs, etc.
There have also been just as many suggestions that the songs list should be weighted higher. The arguments this time are that only the songs list is fair to artists from the pre-album era, there are many more songs than albums, etc.
I think the way to end this discussion would be to always (whatever the number of albums and songs on AM) get the sum of scores, across all artists, equal for albums and songs.
I have created a new artists list, where the album scores have been increased so that the total sum of all album scores and the total sum of all song scores (across all artists) are exactly the same. In addition, all albums and songs are included and equally weighted.
I have also made two small adjustments. The scale a little bit steeper (the value 10 has been changed to 4 (see below)) but on the other hand I have increased the score for albums/songs near the bottom of the 3000/6000 lists (the values 3100 and 6100 have been changed to 4000 and 7000).
I have gone from
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 3100 was assigned.
For songs not in the top 6000, the value 6100 was assigned.
to
album1+album2+album3+... + song1+song2+song3+... (the sum of all AM-ranked albums and songs)
where
album = ln(ln(4+4000)) - ln(ln(4+alltime place))
song = ln(ln(4+7000)) - ln(ln(4+alltime place))
These are the "raw" numbers. The album score is then multiplied by (raw total sum of all song scores / raw total sum of all album scores)
Here is the result: http://www.acclaimedmusic.net/Current/t ... ive_v2.htm
There have also been just as many suggestions that the songs list should be weighted higher. The arguments this time are that only the songs list is fair to artists from the pre-album era, there are many more songs than albums, etc.
I think the way to end this discussion would be to always (whatever the number of albums and songs on AM) get the sum of scores, across all artists, equal for albums and songs.
I have created a new artists list, where the album scores have been increased so that the total sum of all album scores and the total sum of all song scores (across all artists) are exactly the same. In addition, all albums and songs are included and equally weighted.
I have also made two small adjustments. The scale a little bit steeper (the value 10 has been changed to 4 (see below)) but on the other hand I have increased the score for albums/songs near the bottom of the 3000/6000 lists (the values 3100 and 6100 have been changed to 4000 and 7000).
I have gone from
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 3100 was assigned.
For songs not in the top 6000, the value 6100 was assigned.
to
album1+album2+album3+... + song1+song2+song3+... (the sum of all AM-ranked albums and songs)
where
album = ln(ln(4+4000)) - ln(ln(4+alltime place))
song = ln(ln(4+7000)) - ln(ln(4+alltime place))
These are the "raw" numbers. The album score is then multiplied by (raw total sum of all song scores / raw total sum of all album scores)
Here is the result: http://www.acclaimedmusic.net/Current/t ... ive_v2.htm
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.
Re: Alternative artists list
Thank you for devoting all this time and energy to making a new formula for the artist ranking Henrik... It might be too much to hope for, but hopefully this'll satisfy the naysayers, both those who have politely stated their objections and those who haven't
Re: Alternative artists list
One thing that I notice no matter how you arrange the formula is that Bowie must be much more highly regarded in the rest of the world than he is here in America. On the DDD greatest rock artists list he is #18 which I still think is a bit high. On the Rolling Stone list he is #39.
Re: Alternative artists list
Acts in the top 100 (alternative list) with the biggest movement, in both directions:
Upward
John Coltrane, 89-43 (+46)
Brian Eno, 126-82 (+44)
Miles Davis, 62-21 (+41)
Tom Waits, 71-36 (+35)
Nick Cave, 68-35 (+33)
Frank Sinatra, 102-74 (+28)
Steely Dan, 115-87 (+28)
Wilco, 98-73 (+25)
The Cure, 56-39 (+17)
PJ Harvey, 61-45 (+16)
Blue, 49-34 (+15)
Neil Young, 18-7 (+11)
Madonna, 32-23 (+9)
Sonic Youth, 69-60 (+9)
Pavement, 106-98 (+8)
Lou Reed, 59-52 (+7)
Fleetwood Mac, 83-76 (+7)
Downward
Sex Pistols, 44-67 (-23)
Joy Division, 42-62 (-20)
Buddy Holly & the Crickets, 79-99 (-20)
Daft Punk, 40-58 (-18)
Queen, 84-100 (-16)
Sam Cooke, 76-90 (-14)
Outlast, 52-65 (-13)
Simon and Garfunkel, 58-70 (-12)
LCD Soundsystem, 38-49 (-11)
John Lennon, 36-46 (-10)
Sly and the Family Stone, 47-57 (-10)
Massive Attack, 67-77 (-10)
Ray Charles, 60-69 (-9)
Al Green, 73-81 (-8)
Eminem, 75-83 (-8)
M.I.A., 78-86 (-8)
The Kinks, 31-38 (-7)
The Doors, 37-44 (-7)
Chuck Berry, 41-48 (-7)
Creedence Clearwater Revival, 48-55 (-7)
White Stripes, 57-64 (-7)
Ramones, 65-72 (-7)
Pulp, 90-97 (-7)
Upward
John Coltrane, 89-43 (+46)
Brian Eno, 126-82 (+44)
Miles Davis, 62-21 (+41)
Tom Waits, 71-36 (+35)
Nick Cave, 68-35 (+33)
Frank Sinatra, 102-74 (+28)
Steely Dan, 115-87 (+28)
Wilco, 98-73 (+25)
The Cure, 56-39 (+17)
PJ Harvey, 61-45 (+16)
Blue, 49-34 (+15)
Neil Young, 18-7 (+11)
Madonna, 32-23 (+9)
Sonic Youth, 69-60 (+9)
Pavement, 106-98 (+8)
Lou Reed, 59-52 (+7)
Fleetwood Mac, 83-76 (+7)
Downward
Sex Pistols, 44-67 (-23)
Joy Division, 42-62 (-20)
Buddy Holly & the Crickets, 79-99 (-20)
Daft Punk, 40-58 (-18)
Queen, 84-100 (-16)
Sam Cooke, 76-90 (-14)
Outlast, 52-65 (-13)
Simon and Garfunkel, 58-70 (-12)
LCD Soundsystem, 38-49 (-11)
John Lennon, 36-46 (-10)
Sly and the Family Stone, 47-57 (-10)
Massive Attack, 67-77 (-10)
Ray Charles, 60-69 (-9)
Al Green, 73-81 (-8)
Eminem, 75-83 (-8)
M.I.A., 78-86 (-8)
The Kinks, 31-38 (-7)
The Doors, 37-44 (-7)
Chuck Berry, 41-48 (-7)
Creedence Clearwater Revival, 48-55 (-7)
White Stripes, 57-64 (-7)
Ramones, 65-72 (-7)
Pulp, 90-97 (-7)
Last edited by JR on Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Live in Phoenix
- Full of Fire
- Posts: 2510
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:50 am
Re: Alternative artists list
I admit to being a little traumatized by some of the official changes that went up this weekend. Is the list here still just an experiment, or could it become the new Top Artists listing
Re: Alternative artists list
Bruce wrote:One thing that I notice no matter how you arrange the formula is that Bowie must be much more highly regarded in the rest of the world than he is here in America. On the DDD greatest rock artists list he is #18 which I still think is a bit high. On the Rolling Stone list he is #39.
I'm not saying Henrik's method is without biases, but Rolling Stones artist lists are based on pure bias. David Bowie outperforms at least half of those Rolling Stone ranked above him on their own lists. Acclaimed music aims to rank artists based on raw list performances, not on biases, and on lists on both sides of the Atlantic, Bowie is a beast.
I imagine if we concocted a U.S. lists only artist ranking, Bowie would still make top 20, if not top 10.
- Henrik
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6440
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
- Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Alternative artists list
Does that mean you like this list better? I'm planning to use this one, especially if there are no real complaints here.Live in Phoenix wrote:I admit to being a little traumatized by some of the official changes that went up this weekend. Is the list here still just an experiment, or could it become the new Top Artists listing
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.
Re: Alternative artists list
I didn't have complaints on the prior artist list, but even I must admit this one looks better yet! Have you decided whether it will supplant the current offering? In either case, thanks for sharing.
- Henrik
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6440
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
- Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Alternative artists list
Yes it will.Shaun2oo3 wrote:Have you decided whether it will supplant the current offering? In either case, thanks for sharing.
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.
Re: Alternative artists list
I second the praise for this new list, Henrik. It just feels more accurate as a raw summary of how well each act does within the site's rankings (which, unlike what a certain somebody seems to have illusions of, is just that, a summary, not a "greatest list" measured by anything other than performance on the site, as you yourself mention), based on everything that you mentioned. You definitely have my vote!
Re: Alternative artists list
This, and more. Even if we based the list on "greatest music acts of all time" lists that are out there, Bowie would still place where your mentioning from what I've found. Indeed, that Rolling Stone list is a mere anomaly for those kinds of lists. As I said in the previous (troll) thread, Bowie is hardly "just" a critics act, anyhow: he is one of the best-selling acts of all time worldwide, hanging out with many of the acts you lecture us about, including freakin' Sinatra. That's not even considering the fact that he has been called the most influential music act of the past 40 years, without him, there is no Prince, no Madonna, no punk, no alternative rock, no dance or electronic music in many respects. Hell, no music videos if you consider how much visuals played into his live shows. Seriously, your bashing of all of these obviously popular, obviously influential, and just obviously "big" acts is so clearly a piece of hardcore (and very badly done) trolling.Jonathon wrote:Bruce wrote:One thing that I notice no matter how you arrange the formula is that Bowie must be much more highly regarded in the rest of the world than he is here in America. On the DDD greatest rock artists list he is #18 which I still think is a bit high. On the Rolling Stone list he is #39.
I'm not saying Henrik's method is without biases, but Rolling Stones artist lists are based on pure bias. David Bowie outperforms at least half of those Rolling Stone ranked above him on their own lists. Acclaimed music aims to rank artists based on raw list performances, not on biases, and on lists on both sides of the Atlantic, Bowie is a beast.
I imagine if we concocted a U.S. lists only artist ranking, Bowie would still make top 20, if not top 10.
Re: Alternative artists list
This.JimmyJazz wrote:I second the praise for this new list, Henrik. It just feels more accurate as a raw summary of how well each act does within the site's rankings (which, unlike what a certain somebody seems to have illusions of, is just that, a summary, not a "greatest list" measured by anything other than performance on the site, as you yourself mention), based on everything that you mentioned. You definitely have my vote!
- Live in Phoenix
- Full of Fire
- Posts: 2510
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:50 am
Re: Alternative artists list
Yeah, I like this one better, thanks for working it up.Henrik wrote:Does that mean you like this list better? I'm planning to use this one, especially if there are no real complaints here.Live in Phoenix wrote:I admit to being a little traumatized by some of the official changes that went up this weekend. Is the list here still just an experiment, or could it become the new Top Artists listing
- Henrik
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6440
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
- Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Alternative artists list
Here's a full set of new artist lists. I will wait a week or two to use them officially though, to catch more of the errors that are being found.
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (1-200)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (201-400)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (401-600)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (601-800)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (801-1000)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (Albums)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (Songs)
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of 1890-1949
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 1950s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 1960s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 1970s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 1980s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 1990s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 2000s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 2010s
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (1-200)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (201-400)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (401-600)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (601-800)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (801-1000)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (Albums)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (Songs)
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of 1890-1949
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 1950s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 1960s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 1970s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 1980s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 1990s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 2000s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 2010s
JR, that was really "wrong", but I believe it is corrected now. Janet has moved from #305 to #245 and Britney from #299 to #386.JR wrote:I know the artist lists aren't to be "taken too seriously," but...
I am surprised to see Britney Spears ranked higher than Janet Jackson (even though just six positions separate them). Spears has two tracks ranked much higher than Jackson's highest-ranking one, but the latter has four albums in the top 3,000, while Spears has none (and Jackson has more tracks in the top 6,000 than Spears).
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.
Re: Alternative artists list
Henrik wrote:Here's a full set of new artist lists. I will wait a week or two to use them officially though, to catch more of the errors that are being found.
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (1-200)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (201-400)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (401-600)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (601-800)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (801-1000)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (Albums)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (Songs)
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of 1890-1949
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 1950s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 1960s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 1970s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 1980s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 1990s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 2000s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 2010s
JR, that was really "wrong", but I believe it is corrected now. Janet has moved from #305 to #245 and Britney from #299 to #386.JR wrote:I know the artist lists aren't to be "taken too seriously," but...
I am surprised to see Britney Spears ranked higher than Janet Jackson (even though just six positions separate them). Spears has two tracks ranked much higher than Jackson's highest-ranking one, but the latter has four albums in the top 3,000, while Spears has none (and Jackson has more tracks in the top 6,000 than Spears).
Just curious Henrik, what was it that caused random weights to change for the album and song lists themselves, vs just the song list/ album list ratio? For example, Nirvana went from 20-21 for albums, and Wilco went from 44 to 40. What caused the change?
Re: Alternative artists list
Yeah, I definitely think the new list is a better representation, even if it means my favorite band LCD Soundsystem tumbles a bit.
Re: Alternative artists list
The funny thing about this site, is every update bothers me. I spend a year becoming acclimated to the idea that this is the most acclaimed music in the world, in this order...and then POW!!! Everything changes! But that's part of the fun. The site is a living thing, ever changing, just like musical opinions.
One thing that's going to take getting used to is seeing newer acts climb so high. I was born in 1984, so the only acts I've really watched climb into the upper reaches of acclaim are Nirvana and Radiohead. Kanye West and Arcade Fire are making similar climbs, and Kanye now outranks Nirvana, and eventually, Arcade Fire will too. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but I imagine fans of 70s rock felt the same way 20 years ago when Nirvana started to invade top lists and knocking off canonized acts.
One thing that's going to take getting used to is seeing newer acts climb so high. I was born in 1984, so the only acts I've really watched climb into the upper reaches of acclaim are Nirvana and Radiohead. Kanye West and Arcade Fire are making similar climbs, and Kanye now outranks Nirvana, and eventually, Arcade Fire will too. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but I imagine fans of 70s rock felt the same way 20 years ago when Nirvana started to invade top lists and knocking off canonized acts.
- Henrik
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6440
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
- Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Alternative artists list
I discovered a minor mistake in the program, and updated these lists.Henrik wrote:The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (1-200)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (201-400)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (401-600)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (601-800)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (801-1000)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (Albums)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (Songs)
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of 1890-1949
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 1950s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 1960s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 1970s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 1980s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 1990s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 2000s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 2010s
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.
Re: Alternative artists list
Did the actual songs and album lists themselves adjust, or just the artists lists?Henrik wrote:I discovered a minor mistake in the program, and updated these lists.Henrik wrote:The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (1-200)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (201-400)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (401-600)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (601-800)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (801-1000)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (Albums)
The Most Recommended Artists of All Time (Songs)
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of 1890-1949
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 1950s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 1960s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 1970s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 1980s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 1990s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 2000s
The 100 Most Recommended Artists of the 2010s
Re: Alternative artists list
I like this new artists list a lot. Henrik, I remember you posting that you planned to expand the albums list, but didn't have time this year. Can we expect to see that with next year's update?
Re: Alternative artists list
Thanks for the Jackson/Spears note, Henrik. I agree that it was "wrong."
Glancing at the new list, looks good. I'm glad you haven't replaced it right away, though, cause I'd like to save it as a reference/comparison for when you post the new one.
Glancing at the new list, looks good. I'm glad you haven't replaced it right away, though, cause I'd like to save it as a reference/comparison for when you post the new one.
- Live in Phoenix
- Full of Fire
- Posts: 2510
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:50 am
Re: Alternative artists list
I always feel bad for Louis Armstrong on this site, because he comes up as one of the all-time musicians of the 20th century, but he doesn't score well here. Maybe there's not much that can be done about it. The only list I can recall with him in a high spot is Entertainment Weekly's top 100 cds list from about 1993 (for the Hot Five/Hot Seven recordings).
Re: Alternative artists list
How about this one:Live in Phoenix wrote:The only list I can recall with him in a high spot is Entertainment Weekly's top 100 cds list from about 1993 (for the Hot Five/Hot Seven recordings).
http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_artistspop.html
6. Louis Armstrong
and this one:
http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_ ... pular.html
30. West End Blues - Louis Armstrong - 1928
- Live in Phoenix
- Full of Fire
- Posts: 2510
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:50 am
Re: Alternative artists list
This wouldn't get used here, but The Life Millennium: The 100 Most Important Events and People of the Past 1000 Years included Louis as the only musician from the 20th century.
Re: Alternative artists list
There's not going to be a repeat of the other thread in this one, I hope.
- Live in Phoenix
- Full of Fire
- Posts: 2510
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:50 am
Re: Alternative artists list
I'm all done - "this artist" versus "that artist" arguments aren't much fun to me
- Henrik
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6440
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
- Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Alternative artists list
Agreed!JR wrote:There's not going to be a repeat of the other thread in this one, I hope.
In the other thread I let everything go. I really hate to do this but in this thread I'm trying a new strategy and deleted the inapproriate post (and responses to the inappropriate post since they don't make sense anymore).
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.
- Honorio
- Higher Ground
- Posts: 4528
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:38 am
- Location: L'Eliana, Valencia, Spain
Re: Alternative artists list
Agree. And I also agree with the new artists list!Henrik wrote:In the other thread I let everything go. I really hate to do this but in this thread I'm trying a new strategy and deleted the inapproriate post (and responses to the inappropriate post since they don't make sense anymore).
- Henrik
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6440
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
- Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Alternative artists list
No rest for the wacky!
I looked at how much albums contribute to the decade totals (for the all-time total albums and songs contribute with 50% each)
1890-1949 1%
1950-1959 30%
1960-1964 27%
1965-1969 43%
1970-1979 68%
1980-1989 55%
1990-1999 61%
2000-2009 50%
2010-2013 47%
This distribution is quite interesting in itself, but then I got the idea to add a bonus score for pre-1965 songs so that, if this bonus is added to albums in the decade list above, each pre-1965 period equals 1965-1969 (43%), assuming that this is how many extra points the pre-1965 artists would get if the album era started 1890 for all genres.
This means a 49.7% bonus for 1890-1949 songs, a 14.7% bonus for 1950s songs and a 18.8% bonus for 1960-1964 songs.
Here are the artists in a new alternative top 200 that would benefit from these bonus scores.
Elvis Presley 9 => 7
The Beach Boys 11 => 10
Stevie Wonder 25 => 24
The Kinks 38 => 36
Chuck Berry 49 => 38
Johnny Cash 54 => 49
Ray Charles 70 => 61
Frank Sinatra 74 => 71
Sam Cooke 93 => 77
Buddy Holly 99 => 85
Duke Ellington 114 => 87
Little Richard 117 => 101
The Temptations 120 => 114
Roy Orbison 145 => 121
Thelonious Monk 130 => 123
Hank Williams 190 => 130
The Supremes 140 => 133
Smokey Robinson and The Miracles 144 => 136
The Everly Brothers 166 => 138
Muddy Waters 161 => 144
Billie Holiday 217 => 159
Serge Gainsbourg 169 => 166
Bo Diddley 185 => 172
The Drifters 219 => 183
Louis Armstrong 243 => 186
Ella Fitzgerald 195 => 190
Jerry Lee Lewis 212 => 194
The Ronettes 236 => 200
So... would it be a good thing to use these bonus scores? Do they make sense? Do they make much difference at all? Is it better to use the data as they are than to tweak them, even if the purpose is good?
I looked at how much albums contribute to the decade totals (for the all-time total albums and songs contribute with 50% each)
1890-1949 1%
1950-1959 30%
1960-1964 27%
1965-1969 43%
1970-1979 68%
1980-1989 55%
1990-1999 61%
2000-2009 50%
2010-2013 47%
This distribution is quite interesting in itself, but then I got the idea to add a bonus score for pre-1965 songs so that, if this bonus is added to albums in the decade list above, each pre-1965 period equals 1965-1969 (43%), assuming that this is how many extra points the pre-1965 artists would get if the album era started 1890 for all genres.
This means a 49.7% bonus for 1890-1949 songs, a 14.7% bonus for 1950s songs and a 18.8% bonus for 1960-1964 songs.
Here are the artists in a new alternative top 200 that would benefit from these bonus scores.
Elvis Presley 9 => 7
The Beach Boys 11 => 10
Stevie Wonder 25 => 24
The Kinks 38 => 36
Chuck Berry 49 => 38
Johnny Cash 54 => 49
Ray Charles 70 => 61
Frank Sinatra 74 => 71
Sam Cooke 93 => 77
Buddy Holly 99 => 85
Duke Ellington 114 => 87
Little Richard 117 => 101
The Temptations 120 => 114
Roy Orbison 145 => 121
Thelonious Monk 130 => 123
Hank Williams 190 => 130
The Supremes 140 => 133
Smokey Robinson and The Miracles 144 => 136
The Everly Brothers 166 => 138
Muddy Waters 161 => 144
Billie Holiday 217 => 159
Serge Gainsbourg 169 => 166
Bo Diddley 185 => 172
The Drifters 219 => 183
Louis Armstrong 243 => 186
Ella Fitzgerald 195 => 190
Jerry Lee Lewis 212 => 194
The Ronettes 236 => 200
So... would it be a good thing to use these bonus scores? Do they make sense? Do they make much difference at all? Is it better to use the data as they are than to tweak them, even if the purpose is good?
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.
Re: Alternative artists list
I personally like the idea, Henrik. It does help to compensate for the ranking issues that effect the pre-album era artists for reasons that aren't, of course, their fault, while still not radically destroying the rankings of the greats of the album era either. Of course, it is your choice, so choose which method you feel is better or more fair.
- Live in Phoenix
- Full of Fire
- Posts: 2510
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:50 am
Re: Alternative artists list
Looks good to me. I hope we're not killing you with this stuff, Henrik
- Henrik
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6440
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
- Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Alternative artists list
No problem. I wouldn't do this work if I wasn't interested myself.Live in Phoenix wrote:Looks good to me. I hope we're not killing you with this stuff, Henrik
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.
Re: Alternative artists list
Henrik wrote:No rest for the wacky!
I looked at how much albums contribute to the decade totals (for the all-time total albums and songs contribute with 50% each)
1890-1949 1%
1950-1959 30%
1960-1964 27%
1965-1969 43%
1970-1979 68%
1980-1989 55%
1990-1999 61%
2000-2009 50%
2010-2013 47%
This distribution is quite interesting in itself, but then I got the idea to add a bonus score for pre-1965 songs so that, if this bonus is added to albums in the decade list above, each pre-1965 period equals 1965-1969 (43%), assuming that this is how many extra points the pre-1965 artists would get if the album era started 1890 for all genres.
This means a 49.7% bonus for 1890-1949 songs, a 14.7% bonus for 1950s songs and a 18.8% bonus for 1960-1964 songs.
Here are the artists in a new alternative top 200 that would benefit from these bonus scores.
Elvis Presley 9 => 7
The Beach Boys 11 => 10
Stevie Wonder 25 => 24
The Kinks 38 => 36
Chuck Berry 49 => 38
Johnny Cash 54 => 49
Ray Charles 70 => 61
Frank Sinatra 74 => 71
Sam Cooke 93 => 77
Buddy Holly 99 => 85
Duke Ellington 114 => 87
Little Richard 117 => 101
The Temptations 120 => 114
Roy Orbison 145 => 121
Thelonious Monk 130 => 123
Hank Williams 190 => 130
The Supremes 140 => 133
Smokey Robinson and The Miracles 144 => 136
The Everly Brothers 166 => 138
Muddy Waters 161 => 144
Billie Holiday 217 => 159
Serge Gainsbourg 169 => 166
Bo Diddley 185 => 172
The Drifters 219 => 183
Louis Armstrong 243 => 186
Ella Fitzgerald 195 => 190
Jerry Lee Lewis 212 => 194
The Ronettes 236 => 200
So... would it be a good thing to use these bonus scores? Do they make sense? Do they make much difference at all? Is it better to use the data as they are than to tweak them, even if the purpose is good?
Bonus scores for 1950s music = a perfect idea. It allows you to keep modern singles artists at a reasonable level, without hurting pre-album singles artists. Brilliant!
Though Bruce's approach was inappropriate, he made some valid points. I'm going to make a concerted effort this year to find approved lists that celebrate pre-1965 music. It has always been a bit of a weak spot with the modern critic.
I also wanted to approach you on an idea about pre-album artists. Would you ever consider counting a compilation like Robert Johnson's Complete Recordings as an album? It's basically the only Robert Johnson album, contains all 29 of his songs, all recorded around the same time, and it frequently makes all time lists. It essentially qualifies as an album as much as Hatful of Hollow and The Beta Band's The 3 EP's does.
Re: Alternative artists list
That looks good to me, as well, Henrik. Some weighing of past eras is good, given the lack of lists from back then. (Especially year-end lists, which became more accessible and prevalent in the later part of the 90s and beyond, thanks to the Internet).
Re: Alternative artists list
Robert Johnson first became prominent with rock acts in the 1960s when these 2 famous albums were released in 1961 and 1970 respectively:Jonathon wrote: Would you ever consider counting a compilation like Robert Johnson's Complete Recordings as an album? It's basically the only Robert Johnson album,
-
- Different Class
- Posts: 303
- Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:48 pm
- Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Re: Alternative artists list
Thanks again for all extra the work, Henrik. You didn't have to take my/the naysayer's complaints so seriously, but you did anyway, and I really appreciate that.
Re: Alternative artists list
Henrik is a wise man and he looked at the discussions, ignored the emotions and made some good decisions based on the logic presented. They will make the rankings more respectable.irreduciblekoan wrote:Thanks again for all extra the work, Henrik. You didn't have to take my/the naysayer's complaints so seriously, but you did anyway, and I really appreciate that.
- GucciLittlePiggy
- Unquestionable Presence
- Posts: 580
- Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 10:04 pm
- Location: Ohio
Re: Alternative artists list
Perhaps if an artist's most acclaimed album is indeed a compilation it should be included on the site? I'd also really like to see some pre-album artists get some love when it comes to the album rankings.Jonathon wrote:I also wanted to approach you on an idea about pre-album artists. Would you ever consider counting a compilation like Robert Johnson's Complete Recordings as an album? It's basically the only Robert Johnson album, contains all 29 of his songs, all recorded around the same time, and it frequently makes all time lists. It essentially qualifies as an album as much as Hatful of Hollow and The Beta Band's The 3 EP's does.
I just wanted to be one of those ghosts
You thought that you could forget
And then I haunt you via the rear view mirror
On a long drive from the back seat...
You thought that you could forget
And then I haunt you via the rear view mirror
On a long drive from the back seat...
Re: Alternative artists list
I think compilation albums are a slippery slope, and I fully agree with Henrik not wanting them polluting actual album rankings. But in certain cases they are legitimate parts of any complete record collection.GucciLittlePiggy wrote:Perhaps if an artist's most acclaimed album is indeed a compilation it should be included on the site? I'd also really like to see some pre-album artists get some love when it comes to the album rankings.Jonathon wrote:I also wanted to approach you on an idea about pre-album artists. Would you ever consider counting a compilation like Robert Johnson's Complete Recordings as an album? It's basically the only Robert Johnson album, contains all 29 of his songs, all recorded around the same time, and it frequently makes all time lists. It essentially qualifies as an album as much as Hatful of Hollow and The Beta Band's The 3 EP's does.
Re: Alternative artists list
True. But the Complete Recordings is unquestionably RJ's best shot at getting an album ranking, as it's been listed on many All-Time lists.Bruce wrote:Robert Johnson first became prominent with rock acts in the 1960s when these 2 famous albums were released in 1961 and 1970 respectively:Jonathon wrote: Would you ever consider counting a compilation like Robert Johnson's Complete Recordings as an album? It's basically the only Robert Johnson album,
Re: Alternative artists list
Elvis "The Sun Sessions" is on lots of critic's all time lists.GucciLittlePiggy wrote:Jonathon wrote:I
Perhaps if an artist's most acclaimed album is indeed a compilation it should be included on the site?
I suggested to Henrik in the past to start a separate album list for compilations, like RYM does. Most critics were not around in the days when singles ruled and most of them were first introduced to those singles artists through compilation albums.
Here's RYM's list of the top compilation albums of the 1960s = The first Robert Johnson album is #13.
https://rateyourmusic.com/customchart?p ... countries=
The second Robert Johnson album is #11 on the 1970s Comps list:
https://rateyourmusic.com/customchart?p ... countries=
-
- Different Class
- Posts: 303
- Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:48 pm
- Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Re: Alternative artists list
The Sun Sessions and Bob Marley's Legend notwithstanding, I agree with Henrik's decision not to include compilations.
Of course, that being said, there are some interesting cases on AM already that could go either way. For example, The Beach Boys' Smile Sessions could be considered a compilation album. So too can Bob Dylan's Bootleg Series 7 and 8 (both of which are bubbling on AM). If Henrik insists on keeping those albums on AM, then where does he draw the line when it comes to compilations?
Of course, that being said, there are some interesting cases on AM already that could go either way. For example, The Beach Boys' Smile Sessions could be considered a compilation album. So too can Bob Dylan's Bootleg Series 7 and 8 (both of which are bubbling on AM). If Henrik insists on keeping those albums on AM, then where does he draw the line when it comes to compilations?
Re: Alternative artists list
GucciLittlePiggy's point about certain artists and their most acclaimed album being a compilation is a very interesting one. Certain acts, specifically those of the pre-album era, do get included on album, or at the very least, greatest record lists (including significant records, be it singles, LPs, or comps) more often than this site's rankings may suggest, to be perfectly honest. Due to the compilation issue, of course, which I can perfectly understand when it comes to acts from the album era, their rankings may be somewhat misleading without those entries being counted. A few examples when it comes to certain major pre-1960s artists:
- As mentioned above, Elvis definitely is more represented overall on lists by the Sun Sessions rather than the Elvis Presley LP. Rolling Stone, TIME, and EW's lists are notable examples of this (I believe at least, I also think a few UK and European lists may do the same as well, though I may be mistaken). Regardless, I have always felt that it is generally seen as the "definitive" Elvis non-single record.
- The Robert Johnson Recordings Collection(s), since there are quite a few contenders for that unfortunately, would definitely boost his ranking if included, as his current ranking always felt rather underwhelming compared to his list appearances in raw numbers.
- Speaking of Armstrong in this thread, and Live in Phoenix's mention of that EW list, the Hot Fives and Sevens (or sometimes the Complete Hot Fives and Sevens, much like the the Johnson problem) DOES actually appear on more lists than you may think, albeit mostly on best jazz records lists. Indeed, I have rarely ever seen a "jazz collection" list that doesn't have this, very lengthy, like 4 disc, compilation on it. I am pretty sure similar comps of major early jazz greats and pioneers, like Holiday, Ellington, and Charlie Parker, are featured on various jazz lists as well.
(As a side note, I don't think that many rock or modern pop critics underrate Satchmo that much really, I mean the RnR Hall has him as an early influence and a few of his songs in the 500 Songs list and that is voted by rock critics, besides that LIFE list which is pretty notable, he also was one of a few musicians that was chosen by TIME as one of the most influential people of the 20th century, I think he may have been on the NME music icons of the century list (though that may have been Ellington actually), and no less than Robert Christgau, one of the foremost rock critics of all time, has him as one of his Top 5 Favorite Artists)
- Portrait of the Artist seems to be the go-to comp for Sam Cooke to my eyes.
- Finally, while they may skirt the fine line between comp and the highly dreaded "greatest hits" records, the likes of Hank Williams and Chuck Berry do make quite a few list appearances on the basis of basically collections of their works as well.
Finally, a point I wanted to bring up with Henrik actually was the jazz lists issue that Gillingham mentioned in the other thread. I know your rules about genre lists from non-genre sources, but the problem is, compared to other non-rock genres, jazz seems to often have more lists devoted to it from non-jazz related sources. There are a whole bunch of jazz lists I could theoretically post if that rule was possibly loosened. Of course, this is just a thing I wanted to bring up, not wanting to provoke any major controversies or anything!
- As mentioned above, Elvis definitely is more represented overall on lists by the Sun Sessions rather than the Elvis Presley LP. Rolling Stone, TIME, and EW's lists are notable examples of this (I believe at least, I also think a few UK and European lists may do the same as well, though I may be mistaken). Regardless, I have always felt that it is generally seen as the "definitive" Elvis non-single record.
- The Robert Johnson Recordings Collection(s), since there are quite a few contenders for that unfortunately, would definitely boost his ranking if included, as his current ranking always felt rather underwhelming compared to his list appearances in raw numbers.
- Speaking of Armstrong in this thread, and Live in Phoenix's mention of that EW list, the Hot Fives and Sevens (or sometimes the Complete Hot Fives and Sevens, much like the the Johnson problem) DOES actually appear on more lists than you may think, albeit mostly on best jazz records lists. Indeed, I have rarely ever seen a "jazz collection" list that doesn't have this, very lengthy, like 4 disc, compilation on it. I am pretty sure similar comps of major early jazz greats and pioneers, like Holiday, Ellington, and Charlie Parker, are featured on various jazz lists as well.
(As a side note, I don't think that many rock or modern pop critics underrate Satchmo that much really, I mean the RnR Hall has him as an early influence and a few of his songs in the 500 Songs list and that is voted by rock critics, besides that LIFE list which is pretty notable, he also was one of a few musicians that was chosen by TIME as one of the most influential people of the 20th century, I think he may have been on the NME music icons of the century list (though that may have been Ellington actually), and no less than Robert Christgau, one of the foremost rock critics of all time, has him as one of his Top 5 Favorite Artists)
- Portrait of the Artist seems to be the go-to comp for Sam Cooke to my eyes.
- Finally, while they may skirt the fine line between comp and the highly dreaded "greatest hits" records, the likes of Hank Williams and Chuck Berry do make quite a few list appearances on the basis of basically collections of their works as well.
Finally, a point I wanted to bring up with Henrik actually was the jazz lists issue that Gillingham mentioned in the other thread. I know your rules about genre lists from non-genre sources, but the problem is, compared to other non-rock genres, jazz seems to often have more lists devoted to it from non-jazz related sources. There are a whole bunch of jazz lists I could theoretically post if that rule was possibly loosened. Of course, this is just a thing I wanted to bring up, not wanting to provoke any major controversies or anything!
- Honorio
- Higher Ground
- Posts: 4528
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:38 am
- Location: L'Eliana, Valencia, Spain
Re: Alternative artists list
Agree with the new list with the bonus score for pre-1965 albums!
- Rob
- Die Mensch Maschine
- Posts: 7424
- Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:53 pm
- Location: Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Re: Alternative artists list
I'll second this. I'm not good in math, but the new listing somehow captures more the feeling of the album and song lists, it seems to reflect them more. Also the bonus for pre-'65 acts seems a fair compensation.Honorio wrote:Agree with the new list with the bonus score for pre-1965 albums!
On the other hand, making exceptions for compilation albums only for certain acts seems unfair to me, even if it is a famous compilation.
Re: Alternative artists list
Henrik, I understand weighting albums and songs equally but I don't understand the step where you multiply the albums score based on how good the songs score is. Doesn't this just penalize albums who have consistent albums but don't care about catchy singles, the same way the old formula penalized pre album-era artists?
Why not just have whichever is higher between the songs and albums totals weight higher for that artist? That way album artists rise based on strength of albums and singles artists rise based on strength of singles.
Why not just have whichever is higher between the songs and albums totals weight higher for that artist? That way album artists rise based on strength of albums and singles artists rise based on strength of singles.
- Henrik
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6440
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:09 am
- Location: Älvsjö, Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Alternative artists list
That's just a thing for pre-1965 songs, under the hypothesis that if it wasn't before the album era, the artists behind those songs would also have acclaimed albums. Pre-1965 albums (mainly jazz albums) are not boosted, as they are acclaimed already as it is. Wouldn't it be weird to assume that those albums would be more acclaimed if the album era started say 1890 for all genres?Jirin wrote:Henrik, I understand weighting albums and songs equally but I don't understand the step where you multiply the albums score based on how good the songs score is. Doesn't this just penalize albums who have consistent albums but don't care about catchy singles, the same way the old formula penalized pre album-era artists?
Why not just have whichever is higher between the songs and albums totals weight higher for that artist? That way album artists rise based on strength of albums and singles artists rise based on strength of singles.
Everyone you meet fights a battle you know nothing about. Be kind. Always.
Re: Alternative artists list
I think I dig this pre-album handicap idea too. Certainly for the pre-1950 acts.
- Live in Phoenix
- Full of Fire
- Posts: 2510
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:50 am
Re: Alternative artists list
Christgau is not one to hold back, yet still I was surprised with his review of Louis’s Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man: 1923-1934 from 1994, which begins: “I don’t mean to start a parlor game, but does greatest artist of the 20th century mean anything to you? I mean, who else you got? Picasso? Joyce? Renoir? Elvis?”JimmyJazz wrote:no less than Robert Christgau, one of the foremost rock critics of all time, has him as one of his Top 5 Favorite Artists)
Re: Alternative artists list
The Killers? Radiohead? Sex Pistols?Live in Phoenix wrote:Christgau is not one to hold back, yet still I was surprised with his review of Louis’s Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man: 1923-1934 from 1994, which begins: “I don’t mean to start a parlor game, but does greatest artist of the 20th century mean anything to you? I mean, who else you got? Picasso? Joyce? Renoir? Elvis?”JimmyJazz wrote:no less than Robert Christgau, one of the foremost rock critics of all time, has him as one of his Top 5 Favorite Artists)