Discussion: What will future critics lists look like?

[Henrik]

NME is celebrating it's 60th birthday and has a new "of their lifetime" songs list in their new issue.

http://acclaimedmusic.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=378&p=4558#p4558

NME (and other UK critics) usually have a less conservative taste than US critics, so it's not a big surprise that their list includes quite a lot of recent songs. But anyway I counted the number of songs by decade and it looks like this:

'50s: 0 (!)
'60s: 22
'70s: 16
'80s: 19
'90s: 19
'00s: 22
'10s: 2

Most critics lists in the past have included a lot more songs from the '60s. Currently there are 42 songs from the '60s in the AM top 100. Do you think that the '60s will continue to dominate the critics lists or has a new generation taken over that are more interested in the 80s and later stuff? And if so, is it for the better or worse?

[Zorg]

I giggled a little bit when I saw Lana Del Rey up there with the best. On the other hand, I do applaud NME for attempting to undo a huge 60s bias that we get in critics lists. And to me it's never the right 60s albums either! Albums like Forever Changes and Odessey and Oracle get destroyed by the classics of Pet Sounds and Sgt Peppers (it applies for songs too).

This bit I found quite funny:
15. The Beatles – A Day In The Life – 1967
16. The Cure – Boys Don’t Cry – 1979
17. Bob Dylan – Like A Rolling Stone – 1965
18. The Beach Boys – God Only Knows – 1966

AMF's top three all within 4 spots, separated by the Cure! It's certainly refreshing.

Also 5 songs from the 80s in the top 10! I'll take a guess and say that that's never happened in an all-time list before?

I guess your question at the bottom depends on critics' criteria. For now, most of them take importance and influence as being quite significant in their calculations, which obviously harms modern day albums which haven't had much to discover and haven't been around long enough to influence things. But I still think that 60s and (especially) 70s music is better than their modern counterparts; there are, in my opinion, fewer consistently great albums nowadays - lots and lots of good ones, but so few great ones. So to summarise, I appreciate what NME are doing, I just hope that no one goes too far and ignores the great songs and albums made by pioneering artists in the 60s and the 70s.

[Listyguy]

Do you think that the '60s will continue to dominate the critics lists or has a new generation taken over that are more interested in the 80s and later stuff? And if so, is it for the better or worse?

The list is from NME, the same magazine that once had two Oasis albums in it's top 10 of all time (was that NME?), so I wouldn't say their opinions are in line with that of most other critics. And the Americans tend to stick by the older stuff more, so I'm not expecting a complete overhaul of AM's lists any time soon.

[Greg Rumpff]

NME is celebrating it's 60th birthday and has a new "of their lifetime" songs list in their new issue.

http://acclaimedmusic.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=378&p=4558#p4558

NME (and other UK critics) usually have a less conservative taste than US critics, so it's not a big surprise that their list includes quite a lot of recent songs. But anyway I counted the number of songs by decade and it looks like this:

'50s: 0 (!)

This is what I fear with a focus on newer songs. While I'm open-minded enough to see that there is still art being created that will hold up for decades and decades, I do think that it needs to stand up for a minimum of 10 years for consideration (stuff from 2010s? Really?) and I think it would be dangerous to jettison everything pre-60s, particularly because the sound of the wild-new hybrid that is rock 'n' roll being invented largely comes from the doo-wop and rockabilly acts of roughly 1953-1957.

For that matter, unless it specifically says "All-time ROCK songs" I think there would need to be representation of more stuff dating back through the 40s, 30s, etc. back to the dawn of recorded sound. I think it's hard to make a strong case that a song just written this year is more "important" than a well-done version of a Cole Porter standard that continues to be recognized for its quality lyrically and musically by succeeding generations who weren't "there" when it was created. I'd also like to see more respect for country music and other genres outside male pop/rock, I.e. blues, reggae, country, girl groups etc. And while I am probably older than many here, at 41 I don't think it's me being a "fogie", I.e. calcified in my listening tastes and convinced nothing of worth has been created since my teen/college years.

Having said all that, yes it's good to see more 80s tunes, I think a critical bias against electronically generated music unfairly places much of the best music of the decade out of consideration when these all-time lists are generated.

[Jirin]

That list does a way better job with the older selections than the newer ones. Good to see Sympathy up so high.

I don't think songs necessarily need to age in order to be considered for best ever lists, though you should at least wait until the initial popularity has passed. And publications that do add newer songs tend to focus more on more mainstream pop selections. There's some great mainstream songs out there, but it seems the criteria here had more to do with recognizability to younger readers than a thoughtful consideration of quality.

Like, I don't object to 99 Problems or Paper Planes being up there. It's like they took a list of songs that deserved to be on the list, and filtered by popularity.

[nicolas]

No songs from the 50s is ridiculous

[John]

There's so much music coming out now, and every critic has their own favorite. So, I don't think we have unanimous classics anymore because there's so much to choose from. I really feel like 80% of today's modern classics are going to be nowhere to be found on lists in 20 years. The 10% that had mainstream success will and then 10% cult classics. I just can't see most of the semi-obscure indie bands having long term staying power. Add in the fact that even with modern/hip critics, the classics from the 60's and 70's still stand the test of time and I think we'll always see those albums at the top of all time lists. You can argue that 50's music has slowly disappeared off lists but I feel that's a different story, the pioneers become the relics, the next generation become the gods.

[JR]

The 60s likely always will be a favorite decade for best-of lists. I'm also surprised there were no 50s tracks on NME's all-time list.

[Evan]

There's so much music coming out now, and every critic has their own favorite. So, I don't think we have unanimous classics anymore because there's so much to choose from. I really feel like 80% of today's modern classics are going to be nowhere to be found on lists in 20 years. The 10% that had mainstream success will and then 10% cult classics. I just can't see most of the semi-obscure indie bands having long term staying power. Add in the fact that even with modern/hip critics, the classics from the 60's and 70's still stand the test of time and I think we'll always see those albums at the top of all time lists. You can argue that 50's music has slowly disappeared off lists but I feel that's a different story, the pioneers become the relics, the next generation become the gods.

I disagree wholeheartedly. Every critic has their favorite, but those favorites--especially at the very top--have been consistent throughout critic lists. The very top, including Hey Ya!, Paper Planes, Funeral, Is This It, Kid A, etc., are going to be there forever. It's just going to take a few all-time lists from the modern critics (I'm thinking Pitchfork, not NME) to solidify the modern classics.

Although I love this line: "The pioneers become the relics, the next generation become the gods."

[John]

I disagree wholeheartedly. Every critic has their favorite, but those favorites--especially at the very top--have been consistent throughout critic lists. The very top, including Hey Ya!, Paper Planes, Funeral, Is This It, Kid A, etc., are going to be there forever.

That's the mainstream stuff I'm talking about though. That will definitely stick around for a long time. But the rest of the indie darlings that the average person hasn't heard? I just don't see that stuff sticking around in the future. Some will, but I think it's going to be a small percentage. But right now, that stuff is dominating most lists other than the NME's and Rolling Stones of the world.

[Harpo]

I expect each decade will produce a few new faves, and a nostalgic fondness for the music of 20-40 years previously. For example, such a list produced in the year 2062, when I'll be 100 years old, will have a few from the 2050s, a few more from the 2040s, and lots from the 2020s and 2030s. There'll be a smattering of the old 20th century songs, of course (most likely those in AM's top 40 or so, I expect) but that's how the future will look.
Already we are seeing a downturn in 50s popularity, and this may be more frequently seen in the coming years.

Either that, or a revival in the popularity of pre-1940s songs, which in my opinion would be a fine thing to happen.

edit:
just seen a list of NME's Top 100 songs of the 50s - maybe the NME forgot to include the first 8 years of their own existence in their 60th anniversary?

[VanillaFire1000]

edit:
just seen a list of NME's Top 100 songs of the 50s - maybe the NME forgot to include the first 8 years of their own existence in their 60th anniversary?

That may just be the regular old British bias coming from NME instead of an ageist bias. I certainly can't think of any big songs from the 50s made by British artists.

[Jirin]

I disagree wholeheartedly. Every critic has their favorite, but those favorites--especially at the very top--have been consistent throughout critic lists. The very top, including Hey Ya!, Paper Planes, Funeral, Is This It, Kid A, etc., are going to be there forever.

That's the mainstream stuff I'm talking about though. That will definitely stick around for a long time. But the rest of the indie darlings that the average person hasn't heard? I just don't see that stuff sticking around in the future. Some will, but I think it's going to be a small percentage. But right now, that stuff is dominating most lists other than the NME's and Rolling Stones of the world.

Depends what level of 'indie' you mean.

I think the big indie bands like The National, TV On The Radio, Bon Iver, Animal Collective, Fleet Foxes, etc will stick around just fine. There's no reason to think they won't end up with the same critical status as bands like Love, Zombies, VU, etc (Maybe not VU).

But the ones a bit higher up on the 'Obscurity' meter will have a hard time getting remembered.