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.

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...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.

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.