I love the Holidays. In addition to family, parties, gifts and time off, I love the year-end music lists. Their value lies in last-minute opportunities to discover some of the best albums of the year that I might have missed. And although I sample nearly a thousand albums a year, I always miss stuff. A good year-end list always helps me discover a few great ones. This year, that included Annie, The Go! Team, Utada, Dungen, Ada, Skinnyman, Wiley, Cut Copy, On! Air! Library!, The Legends, Entrance, M.I.A. & Diplo, Devin the Dude, Hercules, Mosquitos, The Comas, Faun Fables and many more. If you ever think back at the year and thought there was some great music, but you can't help but wish there was more, fear not. There's always more. You just have to find it, and the right critics to help. It's all in the holiday spirit, you know. All that work sifting through the pabulum of crappy promos to find the gems should not go wasted. They must share the love.

But there's always gotta be some party poopers. The grinches who sneer at the idea that lists are meaningful beyond a random sampling of subjective tastes. Some are too lazy to sort through everything they heard in the past year and put any thought into their order of preference. Or perhaps for others it's pure snobbery. They secretly believe that neophytes simply don't deserve to have treasures that they toiled to dig up from amongst the year's 30,000 releases handed to them on a silver platter.

For others it may be humility. They know they didn't listen to very many albums, and they're simply not qualified to come up with a decent top ten. In a way I applaud these people. At least they're honest. I would guess that at least a third of the 600+ critics who participate in the Village Voice Pazz & Jop Poll are newspaper writers who at some point were assigned music reviews, and they would dutifully review whatever promos are sent to them or the editor assigns them. They have little interest outside their job in actively seeking out better music. They are not driven, they have no real passion for it. In short, they're hacks. They should disqualify themselves, or at least the Voice should provide a disclaimer box, where they can check and write in, "I'm a hack." Or, "I have no real passion for music." "I only listened to eleven albums this year." "I don't believe in Top Tens, but my editor is making me submit this." Then readers could go to the site, click on a button to filter out the hacks, and suddenly where there was once was a boring top ten filled with Brian Wilson, Loretta Lynn, Kanye West and Franz Ferdinand, a more genuinely interesting list would emerge.

In this week's Chicago Reader, Liz Armstrong wrote, "I could've ranked them according to how often they ended up on my stereo, but that would've been ridiculous." You go Liz, lord that over your inferior, ridiculous colleagues. Monica Kendrick wrote, "It should go without saying that I didn't hear every good record made in 2004. I don't believe in Top Tens, and I don't have any faith in consensus-based canons -- 'conventional wisdom' is an oxymoron, like 'free market...' Disclaimers dispensed with, here are ten records I enjoyed a lot in 2004 and managed to find again in my office on deadline, in alphabetical order." Gee Monica, you're too kind. You needn't have gone through the trouble of organizing them alphabetically, really. You make us feel so special, tossing out whatever you found laying around the office. I'm especially disappointed in Monica because she is no hack. She's a great writer who does have a real passion for music. Which is why I feel cheated that she didn't put more effort and thought into her recommendations.

Seriously people, even if it's just a job, and you'd rather be writing a novel or finishing grad school, shouldn't you take your job seriously? As a paid professional critic, you're obliged to use your supposed writing skills and knowledge to make recommendations. So listen to the goddamn albums already, and pick your favorites. It won't kill you. Or maybe it might. Pretend someone is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to pick a favorite. I know, I know, your moods are oh so complex and varied, and you can't pick just one. *click* So average it out and take a stab at which one satisfied more moods than others. I know you can do it, your life depends on it. There, that wasn't so hard, was it? Stop crying now, we have to repeat this exercise nine more times. Aren't you glad this isn't a top 50 list?

why did you post this? do you want to start a discussion on the validity of hierarchy when writing music criticism? or is it just a vent?

my cats breath smells like cat food

Im just too lazy....

I agree that seeing the same albums everywhere is boring, but we both know that just because someone has a "real passion" for music doesn't mean they would exclude any or all of those artists from their personal Top 10.

I thought John Darnielle (Mountain Goats) wrote something interesting about (against) making year-end lists though I disagree him: http://lastplanetojakarta.com/archives/2004/12/top_ten.php

Yeah, I like lists too, and it's neat to find new discoveries that way. That being said, I'm not attached to any individual critic to get bent out of shape if they don't do a year-end lists. Meta-lists like Megacritic/Acclaimedmusic.net/Pazz'n'Jop get the job done for me more often that not. Franz, Lynn, and Kanye made my top 20... so did Brad Mehldau, Nellie McKay, Jerry Springer: The Opera, and the Eternal Sunshine soundtrack. A boring list? Probably. I'm over it.

No you're not. As a paid professional critic, you're obliged to complete the assignments your editor gives you.

It's a rant, Chase. Discuss it or don't, whatever floats your boat. I sent it to the Reader. Perhaps they'll print it after they butcher it.

Sketch, I'm talking about people who are paid to be critics. Don't be offended when I list predictable choices that might be your own favorites, it wasn't my point.

I disagree, Drinky. I think people with a passion for actually expending the effort to seek out great music will come up with many more interesting choices that aren't the same old crap. I see that every year in the individual lists.

Thanks for the link, I'll have to read that.

And in the case of The Chicago Reader, the assignment at hand was to make a top ten list.

D, I don't know what you're trying to say through that image, but I find it exceedingly appropriate nonetheless. Nice work.

I understand it wasn't your intended point. You have a set of expectations for professional music writers, and those expectations aren't being met. You're upset about this. I get all that.

But why does one's opinion matter only if they're getting paid to express it? If anything, shouldn't the cause-and-effect be the other way around? Also, why does passion equal always favoring the obscure over the mainsteam? What if, God forbid, an artistic breakthrough was also a best-seller that everyone recognized? Could we possibly trust the public enough to accept that as a possibility, or did that go out of style once the Beatles broke up?

I liked the article, though I slightly disagreed w/the argument as well...
Top ten lists are meant to be challenging to make, semi-eletist to present, and not entirely a list of the "top 10 things that made it's way to your stereo". I mean, how many millions of people enjoy the Usher album, yet I haven't seen it on one top 10 list?

The main thing I disagree with Darnielle about is how he seems to think he has to artistically evaluate the albums against each other in order to rank them, i.e. his example of The Double vs. Dizzee Rascal. You don't have to make it so complicated, though. You can pick favorites and make a more honest list without over-thinking it.



Well, obviously you do, but many people who've listened to upwards of a hundred 2004 albums could still come back and say that some if not all of those are still among their favorites.

(I've never heard the Kanye album because I hate "Jesus Walks" so much, and I'm not a fan of Franz Ferdinand even though I bought the record early last year. I also think the Loretta Lynn is overrated, but it's really solid for a new country/ crossover record. SMiLE, however, is a Top 10 album for me.)

There's no objective standard for taste blah blah blah, etc. Get off your high horse.

He's slowed down since last I saw him. Must be getting tired.

I agree with Drinky Crow on this one. The criteria for what makes a top 10 list is always gonna be subjective. Is it the 10 albums I liked best or the 10 albums of greatest artistic import? Is there a difference, really, when it comes right down to it in a populist art form? I really don't know the answer (most of the time).

For example, this year I'd say two of the bravest and most interesting albums released were by the Liars and TV On The Radio. Intellectually I really appreciate what both bands have accomplished, but, if I'm honest with myself, I just don't find them all that enjoyable to listen to - and so I seldom play them.

So is it ridiculous to judge music by how much enjoyment one gets out of it? I think that's what makes for an interesting top 10 list, because that's where the kink of individuality enters the equation.

I mentioned in another thread how I've been enjoying an album by The Go, even though, artistically speaking, I know it's one of the year's lesser efforts. But I like it. And I've already listened to it much more often than Desperate Youth, Blood Thirsty Babes. So which of the two makes my Shmoo poll? I really don't know right now. Intellect is battling tapping toes - and it's a even match.

If Dalen continues to post such quality gifs, I fully intend on swiping them all for use on other sites.

Beats image googling incessantly.

What the heck are you talking about? I don't get paid. I'm specifically talking about writers who do get paid for it and are basically underperforming. Where did you get that from? I don't know about you, but I take stock in recommendations from lots of sources, including the top 20s in the Shmoo poll.

I also don't know what you're talking about regarding mainstream music. I said nothing about about that. I was talking about critics who barely listen to more than a dozen releases in a year and list <b>predicatable</ib> choices. I said nothing about mainstream. There's tons of mainstream stuff in my own lists. Dig?

That's cool, I'll mount your high horse instead.

You are right that there is no objective standard for taste, blah blah blah etc. So think about it -- given the fact that there are around 30,000 releases a year, and there is no standard for taste, everyone's tastes are different, there's no accounting for taste, blah blah blah, shouldn't the top ten lists be more diverse than they are?

There are certain critics whom I know put a lot of effort in listening to a lot of music. Their lists in the last few Voice polls reflect that, in that hardly any of them have any albums in common. They dug deep and found the albums that suit their individual tastes. Then you look at critics from the papers who vote for largely the same albums. They're the same albums they were assigned to review because the album was popular, well marketed, had a radio/MTV hit, or the band had a quickly growing live following or "buzz." There's nothing wrong with a paper wanting to cover and review it. But we all know that there's more good music out there than what's covered in the newspapers or <i>Entertainment Weekly</i> or <i>Rolling Stone</i>. So if they don't bother seeking out music like, say, most everyone here on the boards, then I think their lists are bullshit.

I respect the people who participate in the polls with sincerity, and put some actual time and thought into it.

<---- whistles innocently.

From the idea that I shouldn't have been offended at your letter because I wasn't the intended audience or subject matter. Thus, I'm allowed to have predictable entries in my top 20 and you wouldn't care because I'm not a professional.

Dug. The predictable choices you cited as examples just happened to be pretty big sellers. I apologize if my word choice confused you. But about those predictable choices...


I get a sense from this that you would discredit professional critics who are genuinely passionate about said releases even though you weren't. If I recall correctly you had Radiohead and White Stripes in your top 13 last year, and they were both high in the meta-lists. What makes a highly touted release 'good' instead of 'predictable' apart from your opinion of it? If CMJ puts Kanye in their editorial top 10 (which they did), does this make them hacks? Why or why not?

Look, you do have a point, and I'm sure there are tons of writers who do what you're accusing them of. It's just the way you worded your initial statement that I took issue with, specifically the examples you used because they just represent your own idea of what the bland, typical, overrated, etc. records were this year. You could just as easily have listed 5 or 6 other ones, but I'm betting you didn't because you like at least a few of them.

Anyway, I don't really read any of the publications in question or pay attention to their year end lists. Some of the same albums are always going to pop up in a lot of lists, though, because they were good pop albums with broad appeal. They may not really be what most people would claim as their personal favorite or the absolute best, but in lists comprised of polls of other lists, it's those widely-appealing albums that will rise to the top. I know you're taking issue more with individual lists and their lack of individuality, but I'm kind of addressing a larger argument that always comes up with year-end lists. People complain about number 1 choices being bland and predictable, but in many cases those are just the honest favorites, the one the most people can agree upon. It will seldom be the "best" by most people's individual standards.

As for individuals, I suppose music writers and anyone involved directly in the industry certainly have the opportunity to have more uniquie lists because of greater exposure and access to a variety of music. And yet, who says passion about music has to manifest itself in voraciously absorbing as much new music as possible? Many people prefer to spend quality time with a few records. The time required to dig through everything available is time taken away from listening to stuff - new or old - that someone already knows he enjoys. And I would rather that lists have a few predictable but honest choices than to be self-consciously obscurist or contrarian. I think that can be just as big a problem with indie publications and individuals as blandness and predictability is with the mainstream. You can't tell me that lots of people don't put together really eclectic and unusual lists just to impress.

I'm not necessarily arguing with you here, just presenting another side.

*banging head against desk* I like the four artists mentioned to varying degrees. I used them as examples because there's no doubt they'll make the VV top ten because they're more ubiquitous on top ten lists. My point is that a bunch of lists with the very same artists would be pretty boring. I guess I should have elaborated, but I had no idea that would cause so many bunched undies.



Indeed, there are seekers and there are the burrowers, who dig into what's familiar and stay there. I don't know about you, but I'm interested in the listmakers who are seekers, who are maniacs that listen to music far more than is mentally healthy. Such a lifestyle generally allows one to still play favorites to death, I know.

Ooh my head.

I'm just "discussing" your "rant". Sorry you found it painful.

I don't do lists -- well, I will be doing a list, but if I finish it, it'll be my first -- because they're hard. I mean, how the L do you compare Kylie Minogue and Neurosis and say one is better than the other? It's not, they're different, that's all.

That and I just never get around to collating them all. Too many. Too afraid that I missed something really good. Too afraid that I just plain forgot something that's better than something that stayed on the list.

I mean, you got to be pretty methodical throughout the year to get everything.

There was a disk that came out the previous year on December 23, 2003 (I think -- Epica was the band's name). How on earth does anyone have time to digest that record and decide if it's worthy of inclusion? And I didn't discover Rob Dougan until 2004. It's a 2001 record! No-one here mentioned it. No-one at Rave Recs mentioned it. No-one at CRF mentioned it. No-one at Head-Fi mentioned it.

How the L do you expect me to keep up with this stuff?

Oh, yeah, that's right. I'm not a professional. You don't. Never mind...

Here's my qualm and opportunity to ask a question I've wondered about for a while.

First, FnB's lofty expectation is an almost impossible lifestyle to maintain and I've often wondered how people can manage to feret out so much stuff and make sense of any of it. By my math, FnB hears or samples three to four new releases a day, on top of the old faves he spins. At best, they're probably superficial listens and I don't see how you can "get" a record the first time you hear it - often are the times it takes me 6 spins before something makes its merits apparent. It takes quality time to know, at least for me it does. That leads to a lot of piles of stuff I haven't listene to yet, but I'm resigned to the peace of mind afforded by not feeling like I have to hear EVERYTHING and instead really enjoying what I do hear. If not, I'd go crazy.

Second, I don't know what he does for a living, but that's an almost impossible way of life for a professional music writer to maintain, especially at a newspaper where the business of music coverage involves lots of interviewing and being out working sources in the music community - things that subtract dramatically from music listening time before you even think about things like family, other pastimes, etc. Take our music writer here; he listens to lots of stuff, of course, but also has to keep up on what's going on news-wise locally on top of raising a his teenage son and moving into a new house. Sometimes when I ask him what he's liked lately and he'll plainly admit he hasn't had time to delve into much new stuff beyond the things he has to to meet the requirements of his job - which around here requires lots of hard rock/metal and adult/poppy knowledge. He's more of a music journalist than a critic, though he does write reviews now and then, so when he's called on to do a year-end Top 10 he's obviously not going to come from the same place as Christgau, Fricke or apparently FnB. That doesn't mean his recommendations aren't valid because he still has great taste, but the nature of his job is so different that he's not going to get into the ephemera as much as others. He mentions stuff he's digging occasionally in his weekly column but only if it's really noteworthy. He still did a list - those things are an ego boost as much as anything - but I think he'll admit that some good things probably got passed over.

The City Reader writers probably had similar thoughts in mind and didn't want to project a false image of being in a position of picking out the best of the best when they really felt they didn't have the body of familiarity to make a worthwhile list. I think that's doing the reader a favor, rather than trotting out a list that looks a lot like every other one clogging the peanut gallery these days.

I'd actually like to see less lists. It makes for lazy readers who'd be better off finding critics they trust and following what they write regularly rather than forcing the writer to help them play catch-up at the end of the year by putting together a hackneyed, subjective and almost-always-incomplete list.