Moderately Acclaimed Albums - Looking Forward!

[Brad]

I guess I should bring this up before I start collecting nominations for MA13 in a few weeks... there was some discussion near the end of the last tournament regarding changing the eligibility requirements. The current rules have as eligible everything outside of the top 500 albums per AM as eligible.

Questions I have:
1. Does this need to be changed? Is the game okay as it stands or do we need to exclude a greater number of albums to define what is truly "Moderately" (or less) Acclaimed?
2. IF change is necessary, what does the new bar look like? Do we exclude the top 600? 700? 1000? 3000? Or...
3. Do we use some other measure to define (or limit) eligibility?

Regarding the last point, I've stated before that I'd rather not use the forum poll as a barometer. My reasoning (in short) is that, while the polls are fun to participate in and follow, the AM lists are (in my mind) the "Authority" that drive this entire site. The personal lists are much more fluid - and participation in the polls doesn't by any means equate to participation in the Moderately Acclaimed tournaments (MA participation being, of course, much lower). There may be "forum favorites" and yes, they may occasionally show up in Moderately Acclaimed, but is that such a big deal? Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't (hell -here, even Saint Etienne can beat the Beatles!). I think we tend to over-complicate things sometimes.

Ultimately, the game is about discovery, not "winning" (at least that's my take)… if we each try to submit albums that we feel need to be heard by others, we will succeed in sharing groovy new sounds.

But I'm no dictator (though I do play one on TV)… What are your thoughts?

[acroamor]

I would be fine with the new bar going all the way to the top 1000. I know, I know, "moderately acclaimed" is a subjective term, but it would definitely increase the variety nicely.

[Bang Jan]

If we do use the AMF list for eligiblbilty, (which I hope ends up happening) may I suggest a points threshold rather than a ranking threshold? Say anything that received more than 300 points in the poll (equililent of three first place votes) is ineligible for inclusion. However, if we don’t end up using the AMF poll, I’m more than happy with changing the AM threshold to outside the top 1000.

[Listyguy]

Regarding the last point, I've stated before that I'd rather not use the forum poll as a barometer. My reasoning (in short) is that, while the polls are fun to participate in and follow, the AM lists are (in my mind) the "Authority" that drive this entire site. The personal lists are much more fluid - and participation in the polls doesn't by any means equate to participation in the Moderately Acclaimed tournaments (MA participation being, of course, much lower). There may be "forum favorites" and yes, they may occasionally show up in Moderately Acclaimed, but is that such a big deal? Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't (hell -here, even Saint Etienne can beat the Beatles!). I think we tend to over-complicate things sometimes.

Ultimately, the game is about discovery, not "winning" (at least that's my take)… if we each try to submit albums that we feel need to be heard by others, we will succeed in sharing groovy new sounds.

I agree with this. This isn't a forum of critics, so I don't think our tastes should define what makes something "moderately acclaimed."

In terms of changing what makes an album moderately acclaimed, I made this point before but the top 500 on AM have added about 50 new albums since this game started in 2009. So I think it would be reasonable to change the limit from 500 to 600 at least.

[DaveC]

I agree with this. This isn't a forum of critics, so I don't think our tastes should define what makes something "moderately acclaimed."

In terms of changing what makes an album moderately acclaimed, I made this point before but the top 500 on AM have added about 50 new albums since this game started in 2009. So I think it would be reasonable to change the limit from 500 to 600 at least.

I agree with this. MA is not broken so major change - while tempting - isn't needed. Removing all post 2008 albums from AM leaves the 500th remaining album being current rank 558. So a limit raise to 600 would be reasonable.

[Jirin]

I wouldn’t want to use forum polls as a barometer because part of the fun is letting the local favorites shine. I wouldn’t mind lowering the bar to 1000.

Unless we set the bar really high, like only top 200 on forum poll are excluded.

[Holden]

I feel like we really shouldn’t use our own polls for inclusion? It almost feels redundant in all honesty, at most maybe 100 extra albums would be excluded, and I also think that we are who decides what is acclaimed or not. I think 500 or 1000 (or anywhere in between) is a fine marker.

[VacantJoy]

i vote against AMF lists too

[Brad]

So good, sounds like most of you (so far) agree we should focus on the Acclaimed Music list and avoid the Poll results as a barometric starting point. That relieves me.

So is excluding the top 1000 from the AM list too much? I (like some of you) am fine with this. On the other hand, excluding 1-600 would be a nice way to maybe ease slowly into drawing back (with thoughts towards potentially cutting back more in future years). And not changing it all is still on the table as well...

Thanks so much for the feedback so far!

[VacantJoy]

you're welcome

[FrankLotion]

I really don’t have any problems with how we’ve been doing it for the last few years but changing the AM rank threshold seems reasonable.

Really my only issue is hoping we can find a way to bar 808’s & Heartbreak from being nominated for the third time in 5 years, I think the rule we have is fine that makes it so you can’t nominate an album two years in a row when it loses in the first round but personally if an album gets nominated every other year it’ll get tedious real fast.

Maybe keep the existing rules but “retire” albums for a few years that have been nominated back-to-back (i.e. just two years after it lost)?

I’m not too passionate about that problem and I might be the only person who cares about it so if everyone’s fine keeping as is then I have no complaints!

[spiritualized]

I would agree on a 1000 limit.
I mean a top 1000 in the AM list is desert-island quality, so hardly "moderately acclaimed" to me.

[Brad]

Really my only issue is hoping we can find a way to bar 808’s & Heartbreak from being nominated for the third time in 5 years, I think the rule we have is fine that makes it so you can’t nominate an album two years in a row when it loses in the first round but personally if an album gets nominated every other year it’ll get tedious real fast.

Maybe keep the existing rules but “retire” albums for a few years that have been nominated back-to-back (i.e. just two years after it lost)?

I’m not too passionate about that problem and I might be the only person who cares about it so if everyone’s fine keeping as is then I have no complaints!

Yes, I hear you FrankLotion - I never want to hear Enema Of The State again!

You are not alone in feeling this way (others have voiced this concern) - I think we will look to change this as well.

[Jackson]

The issue with very acclaimed albums sneaking into the field appears to be primarily a 2010s issue given the top of the AM list remains massively biased to albums that have had many years to gain acclaim. Only 45 2010s albums are in the top 500, so there are many popular and acclaimed albums like Art Angels or ArchAndroid that are eligible. Even if the threshold is lowered to 600, many recent albums that were among the most acclaimed for their year would still be eligible (for example Be the Cowboy, Trouble Will Find Me, UFOF, The Seer, Benji, 21, Born to Die). Another idea to change the eligibility requirements would be to exclude any album that was in the top 100 for its decade from being nominated; for the 2010s, album #100 is Sharon van Etten's Are We There at 876. Perhaps that is too complicated though.

[Holden]

The issue with very acclaimed albums sneaking into the field appears to be primarily a 2010s issue given the top of the AM list remains massively biased to albums that have had many years to gain acclaim. Only 45 2010s albums are in the top 500, so there are many popular and acclaimed albums like Art Angels or ArchAndroid that are eligible. Even if the threshold is lowered to 600, many recent albums that were among the most acclaimed for their year would still be eligible (for example Be the Cowboy, Trouble Will Find Me, UFOF, The Seer, Benji, 21, Born to Die). Another idea to change the eligibility requirements would be to exclude any album that was in the top 100 for its decade from being nominated; for the 2010s, album #100 is Sharon van Etten's Are We There at 876. Perhaps that is too complicated though.

I'd actually say I prefer this idea. It is a little complicated but I feel like it'll get us better results, if that makes sense.

[Rob]

So, I may have said something about albums that are too obviously forum favorites competing in this game. For me this game isn't really about nominating the winning album, but about two things. One, sharing albums you love, but seem overlooked or underappreciated, hoping that other people who can appreciate it discover it this way. Two, discovering albums yourself, especially ones that don't come naturally to you. Perhaps other people look at it differently, but things like The ArchAndroid, Art Angels or any album by The Beatles (except perhaps the Yellow Submarine soundtrack and that 2005 remix thing from Cirque du Soleil called Love) don't fall into that category for me and I doubt they would for anyone else. I guess there are different perspectives on what you nominate though. I can see why you would keep the critics' list as the guiding force and I don't disagree, but I also would be a bit disappointed if next year we have Dirty Computer and american dream as part of our line-up: two of our EOY poll winners that happen to be eligible and would there immediately dominate a game that could otherwise put a spotlight on something truly underappreciated. I guess going from 500 to 600 or even 1000 would solve a lot. 1000 might actually exclude every big forum favorite, so I can't say I'm against that.

I also somewhat agree about albums that just keep on appearing in this. 808's & Heartbreaks and Enema of the State indeed and I also expect My Morning Jacket's Z and Bright Eyes' I'm Wide Awake, It's Morning to show up again next year. It's a bit dull, but I don't see a great solution to this. Every year brings new players to the game and for them these are not yet obvious picks. And sometimes something that did badly before suddenly does well. The Woods by Sleater-Kinney lost in the first round one year, but two years suddenly won the whole game. Similarly, we saw Songs of Faith and Devotion making the finals while also losing at the first opportunity in an earlier edition. Don't know quite how I feel about this, even if I'm not looking forward to seeing too many of the same titles again.

More important to me than above two points is something that isn't mentioned, but I would like to know other's opinion. After playing this for four years I've really begun to feel that this all takes too long. With 128 albums and a running time of over half a year, this game takes up a lion's share of my listening in a year. I know that it is partially to do with the way I participate, by listening to each album twice in the first round and once again in each subsequent round. I already eased on it by allowing myself to skip albums after the first round if I deeply disliked them, but still. I can get a bit weary of the game as the year progresses. Maybe it's just something I should fix myself, but I wouldn't be against cutting the line-up in half. What does everybody else think?

[bonnielaurel]

Top 1000 sounds fine to me. Don't make the rules too complicated. I would prefer to stay with 128 albums.

[mileswide]

I would favour keeping 128 albums but I don't mind reverting to 64 if too many voters are pressed for time.

A 3-year moratorium on re-nominating albums doesn't seem too severe to me.

I'm leaning towards preferring keeping the AM top 500 as the ceiling but for people to use their judgement and for an exclusion of any albums that had been in the 500 in any of the prior 2 updates (e.g. GP and Oracular Spectacular wouldn't be permitted as they were 444 after the 2014 update and 453 in 2018 respectively). There are plenty of albums in that 500-600 bracket that aren't obvious staples even for avid music-lovers like ourselves- I reckon a lot of people (myself included) would've missed out on Brilliant Corners if it wasn't in 2019's competition, for example.

On a sidenote, I can't say I'd be astounded if Long Season in either form gets nominated in 2021's MAA and ends up winning the thing...

[Rob]

I would favour keeping 128 albums but I don't mind reverting to 64 if too many voters are pressed for time.

A 3-year moratorium on re-nominating albums doesn't seem too severe to me.

I'm leaning towards preferring keeping the AM top 500 as the ceiling but for people to use their judgement and for an exclusion of any albums that had been in the 500 in any of the prior 2 updates (e.g. GP and Oracular Spectacular wouldn't be permitted as they were 444 after the 2014 update and 453 in 2018 respectively). There are plenty of albums in that 500-600 bracket that aren't obvious staples even for avid music-lovers like ourselves- I reckon a lot of people (myself included) would've missed out on Brilliant Corners if it wasn't in 2019's competition, for example.

Yes, but there are too in the 401-500. When is the last time someone here made a case for Leftfield's Leftism or Albert Ayler's Spiritual Unity? By far most of the 501-600 group are familiar quantities.

On a sidenote, I can't say I'd be astounded if Long Season in either form gets nominated in 2021's MAA and ends up winning the thing...

I actually discovered that album through this game, I think in 2015. In my memory it passed quite a few rounds. It's one of my favorite discoveries through MAA, although I'm not going to re-nominate it myself as I want to do only completely new picks.

[mileswide]

Yes, but there are too in the 401-500. When is the last time someone here made a case for Leftfield's Leftism or Albert Ayler's Spiritual Unity? By far most of the 501-600 group are familiar quantities.

Strong point, well argued, and I'm prepared to own up to using some poor logic there. I merely have doubts that we'll be able to close all loopholes if the main bugbear is the idea of MAA as a coronation of forum favourites. Roughly around the 1000 mark is where you see these peter out more but there'd be nothing to stop anyone picking something we all know like Diamond Dogs (#1112) while an album like Fantaisie militaire (#972j remains overlooked.

I'm thinking aloud as usual but what if we use the AM top artists as an exclusionary criterion? There are still some major artists just outside the top 50 but a fair few of them have rarely spotted areas of their back catalogue (Lou Reed's later decades, blues-era Fleetwood Mac), so we could put a ban on any album from a top 50 artist perhaps? I don't mind either way, I'm chomping at the bit for the next MAA and I'll relish it irrespective of the rules!

And I know it wasn't what you were getting at but someone should totally make more of a case for Spiritual Unity or better still Albert Ayler: Live in Greenwich Village, the man didn't care about song structure, just about creating a melodic noise!

[spiritualized]

if the main bugbear is the idea of MAA as a coronation of forum favourites.

That's exactly the point.
We have the all-time lists for that purpose.

[mileswide]

That's exactly the point.
We have the all-time lists for that purpose.

Clearly, which is why I agree with those who've said in the past that we should use the all-time lists to bar obvious choices (I'm aware this isn't an option on the table). I don't think setting a threshold of 1000 or whatever number is going to begin to address the main issue. You've seen in your Classics game that people circumvent the top rankings by nominating unranked tracks on popular albums as indeed I have.

What could happen is to keep the current rules but once Brad publishes the nominations list, the floor would be open for anyone to object to an album's inclusion on the grounds of existing popularity. The nominator could then be asked to come up with another choice and hopefully this will prevent albums getting in on a technicality.

[Brad]

Based on the discussion above, I would like to propose the following changes to MA this year (so I can begin the nomination process). Please let me know if you have any other strong objections before we move forward.

1. Exclude the top 1000 albums according to AM ranking (currently top 500 are excluded).
2. Exclude any album included in any of the three previous tournaments (they will be eligible again after three years). Currently, previous year entries are ineligible (plus a convoluted group of albums whose eligibility is based on prior tourney results).

I think these changes would help address some of the main issues that have been brought up. They are also relatively uncomplicated from my perspective. We'll keep it at 128 albums for now (sorry Rob!).

Thanks for all your input!