Rankings

[peteevans]

Guys. This is a terrific Well done and thanks for putting it together it is great to see the views and opinions too. However the one thing I can't quite understand is with regard to the artist rankings. If we take the album artist rankings then the quibble I have is in relation to my musical heroes Steely Dan. I can't understand why they are ranked at what I would consider a lowly 57th ( 90th overall ) when they have more points than other artists that are rated higher. For example Kraftwerk and Marvin Gaye. Marvin has around 10000 points if you take the tip 3000 albums and work it out on that basis, which is surely the fairest way of doing it . If Marvin has an album ranked at say number 200 then that one album should get 2800 points and for an album that is ranked at number 1500 then it should get 1500 points, if you follow. This is surely the fairest way if doing it and I understand that this is not the way it is done. On that basis Steely Dan have 14500 approx points and Gaye had around 10000 . So why is Marvin ranked 21 places higher in the albums ranking of artists. That is ridiculous. The Steely Dan ranking is also split by the votes for Donald Fagens Nightfly album which to all intents and purposes is a Steely Dan album.

Also with regards to the lists that are included. There are lots of lists that favour certain types of artist, your typical guitar type band in polls like Fast and Bulbous, recent NME Paste,etc,etc ad nauseam who are populated by young hacks with limited awareness of the history of popular music in a wide sense. Hence the likes of The Pixies arc are ranked higher than the Dan which is utter nonsense. The preponderance of these lists skew the results in favour of those types of artist. This rrnders tge whole site irrelevant jn many ways.

[Live in Phoenix]

Also, Henrik, can you stop screwing around and make "Hocus Pocus" by Focus the new number one song?

[StevieFan13]

Also, Henrik, can you stop screwing around and make "Hocus Pocus" by Focus the new number one song?

Yeah, and how come Weird Al's Mandatory Fun hasn't topped the albums list yet? Way better than that Nirvana crap.

[Nassim]

Marvin has around 10000 points if you take the tip 3000 albums and work it out on that basis, which is surely the fairest way of doing it . If Marvin has an album ranked at say number 200 then that one album should get 2800 points and for an album that is ranked at number 1500 then it should get 1500 points, if you follow. This is surely the fairest way if doing it.

No, it's Not. That would for instance would mean having the 1500 and 1501 ranked albums is more important than having the best album ever.
It would also mean there's the same difference between #1 and #500 (one appearing in over 100 more lists the the other) as between #2501 and #3000 (pne having one more mention than the other)

You mention the bias of the NME list, but I'd argue that as biased as they are, some of the lists that include Steely Dan (like those from Crossroads or Rolling Stones) are biased toward classic rock. Most lists are biased, whether on purpose (to fit the audience) or not (country bias, generation bias...). Also NME lists actually include Steely Dan albums so that seems like an odd example.
I'd add that if, like Doolittle, an album is included in all kind of publications (traditional, modern, "avant garde", UK, US, rest of the world...) they deserve to be ranked higher than one that is liked by mostly one type or one region.

[Father2TheMan]

Marvin has around 10000 points if you take the tip 3000 albums and work it out on that basis, which is surely the fairest way of doing it . If Marvin has an album ranked at say number 200 then that one album should get 2800 points and for an album that is ranked at number 1500 then it should get 1500 points, if you follow. This is surely the fairest way if doing it.

No, it's Not. That would for instance would mean having the 1500 and 1501 ranked albums is more important than having the best album ever.
It would also mean there's the same difference between #1 and #500 (one appearing in over 100 more lists the the other) as between #2501 and #3000 (pne having one more mention than the other)

You mention the bias of the NME list, but I'd argue that as biased as they are, some of the lists that include Steely Dan (like those from Crossroads or Rolling Stones) are biased toward classic rock. Most lists are biased, whether on purpose (to fit the audience) or not (country bias, generation bias...). Also NME lists actually include Steely Dan albums so that seems like an odd example.
I'd add that if, like Doolittle, an album is included in all kind of publications (traditional, modern, "avant garde", UK, US, rest of the world...) they deserve to be ranked higher than one that is liked by mostly one type or one region.

Even though I also am a big Steely Dan fan, I would agree with all that Nassim has said here. Being placed on many different "kinds" of lists implies more acclaim than being dominant on one specific "kind" of list.

[Jirin]

Yeah, WHY DOES THIS SITE INCLUDE RATINGS BY CRITICS I DON'T AGREE WITH?! This makes it utter trash! I will not receive recommendations from a site that is not my own personal taste mirror!

The algorithm for top artists takes into account top 6 albums and top 6 singles and point scale is curved. This makes sense as otherwise would just favor career longevity. Also takes into account the distance between 1 and 100 is much bigger than distance between 1401 and 1500.

[BleuPanda]

The algorithm for top artists takes into account top 6 albums and top 6 singles and point scale is curved. This makes sense as otherwise would just favor career longevity. Also takes into account the distance between 1 and 100 is much bigger than distance between 1401 and 1500.

I thought Henrik changed the formula a few years back to include everything, not just the top 6.

[prosecutorgodot]

The algorithm for top artists takes into account top 6 albums and top 6 singles and point scale is curved. This makes sense as otherwise would just favor career longevity. Also takes into account the distance between 1 and 100 is much bigger than distance between 1401 and 1500.

I thought Henrik changed the formula a few years back to include everything, not just the top 6.

I remember Henrik changing the formula to include the top 9 songs and albums.

[peteevans]

What a load of nonsense ! Let's take the example of virtually every sport or competition in the world. Let's give an example of the Eurovision song contest. The country that wins gets the most points. Simple as. Countries are based on the accumulated number of points from various sources and the number of points from the various judges whether it be 12 or Nil points as they say. Surely all of the artists should be jusged in this way if the ooints are accumulated from various polls ? Of course the other point is that many of these polls are made by certain types of music journalist that favours certain types of " rock and roll " and i seriously doubt the quality of these polls because they are made by journalists who are quite young. There is a plethora of these types of polls on this forum as opposed to the generally accepted best sources of music opinion such as Mojo Uncut Rolling Stone and Village Voice etc who have a greater spread of music journalists across the spectrum in terms of age and knowledge. Of course the other point is that these artists lists and rankings are clearly influenced based on votes for albums rather thsn artists and any list of greatest artists should be based on a fair consensus and cross section of critics and musicians polls ( the only views that matter ) as to who the greatest artists or songwriters. I am sure if these artists polls were based on the question who are the greatest artists or songwriters you would see a completely different set of results.

[StevieFan13]

Cuz lord knows we should use Eurovision as a way to judge good music (which I say as a Eurovision fan).

I get the frustration - I have my own favorites that would probably be much higher in the artist rankings if they were judged purely on influence (*cough* 2Pac *cough*), but the site runs on data, not general consensus on who's influential (which is, again, incredibly subjective - Lou Reed and Ofra Haza are both "influential" but not necessarily to the same people).

[Jirin]

Actually this is exactly how tennis rankings work, takes their top 14 results from the last 52 weeks. (Maybe top 18 now, I know it's changed a few times). That's also similar to the way FIFA country rankings work. I think golf rankings are similar, you get the points from your top X results throughout the season. Also a lot of performance sport competitions like slopestyle take your top 1 or top 2 performances. A lot drop highest and lowest judge. All sports have statistical heuristic meant to get as close as they reasonably can to the truth.

This isn't a sport, it's an algorithm trying to statistically calculate overall preference of critics. You can't pick and choose which critics count and which don't based on the ones you agree with. I don't think you can make a reasonable argument that the most accurate heuristic is just a sum of results. Otherwise bands that released the greatest music of all time for a few years lose to bands that just released pretty good music for decades. Do you think Neil Young should be ranked higher than the Beatles?

I don't know who you're talking to that Rolling Stone is the most respected, Rolling Stone was the most respected music magazine in the classic rock period but now they're generally considered irrelevant and they're read mostly by people who grew up during its peak. And they only give good ratings to new albums by people who made great albums 20 or 30 years ago. You're valuing critics' opinion by no metric other than whether they happen to agree with you.

[jamieW]

Honestly, folks, I'm feeling a huge sense of déjà vu. I've been on the forum quite a while now, and this exact argument seems to spring up every once in a while - and it seems like it's always about Steely Dan! (I would need to search for the threads, but I know they go back to the old forum, which predated my participation.) Either SD has the most devoted fans on the planet, or the same person keeps coming back. (Though from peteevans's posts, he does seem new to the site.)

[Madzong]

What a load of nonsense ! Let's take the example of virtually every sport or competition in the world. Let's give an example of the Eurovision song contest. The country that wins gets the most points. Simple as. Countries are based on the accumulated number of points from various sources and the number of points from the various judges whether it be 12 or Nil points as they say. Surely all of the artists should be jusged in this way if the ooints are accumulated from various polls ? Of course the other point is that many of these polls are made by certain types of music journalist that favours certain types of " rock and roll " and i seriously doubt the quality of these polls because they are made by journalists who are quite young. There is a plethora of these types of polls on this forum as opposed to the generally accepted best sources of music opinion such as Mojo Uncut Rolling Stone and Village Voice etc who have a greater spread of music journalists across the spectrum in terms of age and knowledge. Of course the other point is that these artists lists and rankings are clearly influenced based on votes for albums rather thsn artists and any list of greatest artists should be based on a fair consensus and cross section of critics and musicians polls ( the only views that matter ) as to who the greatest artists or songwriters. I am sure if these artists polls were based on the question who are the greatest artists or songwriters you would see a completely different set of results.

Interesting. However some years ago (2013) you posted, "why is the Rolling Stone staffed by such poor journalists lacking any kind of appreciation of truly great music ?"

You can't pick which critics/magazines (currently or not) align themselves with your way of thinking in order to get to the most critically acclaimed albums and songs.

[Live in Phoenix]

Honestly, folks, I'm feeling a huge sense of déjà vu. I've been on the forum quite a while now, and this exact argument seems to spring up every once in a while - and it seems like it's always about Steely Dan! (I would need to search for the threads, but I know they go back to the old forum, which predated my participation.) Either SD has the most devoted fans on the planet, or the same person keeps coming back. (Though from peteevans's posts, he does seem new to the site.)

Steely Dan was real, man!!