I'm reading Uncut. Their number one record of the year is The Arcade Fire's Funeral.

But in the article itself, it says:




I don't understand. So a record that came out three-quarters of the way through last year is the best record of this year? If it was December or even November, I might be able to stretch it. But September? That's still almost a third of the year left.

I, to, am lost on this.

Their appeal transcends time. Simple.

It was one rip-shit album. Damn good.

It was released this year in the UK

Uncut is a UK mag

Therefore it is eligible for the end of year list

for the 200,000 time...

This issue's a mixed bag for me. I listed Annie's Anniemal in my 2004 list because that's when it was released in Europe, but I didn't list it in my 2005 list because I already chose it the previous year. However, many people would say that I have every right to list it again because it was released in 2005 in the US.

I finally came to the conclusion that I'll add a record to my list based on when I actually bought it, meaning if I bought Anniemal in 2005 (its U.S. release date), it would have shown up inn my Top-20 of 2005 this year.

I bet there are still some countries left for the 2006 list.

Funeral could keep this up for a long time.

Like #1 Botswana Indie Chart

OK, then what if you obtain an album in '05 in North America (my mailorder, promo, etc.) that has an '06 release date there but an '05 release date in Europe. Can that count for your '05 list?

If yes, my new '05 number one is now Super Numeri's "The Welcome Table", and will be next year too.

That's what I did with Anniemal. I counted it in my '04 list even though it had an '05 release date in North America.

e.g. Goldfrapp - Supernature

Wasn't Dungen's album not released in the U.S. until this year?

i.e.--Mogwai's new album set for next year. I saw on another board someone was naming it as their top album for 2005 which is just bizarre, but they were claiming that because they acquired it in 2005, it means they can put it in their list. I call shenanigans.

Ok, Fastnbulbous2, we get it. With the plethora of electronic delivery systems available for receiving new music, there is no excuse for not getting a 2004 release in 2004 and charting it on one's best of '04...

Well, if you leave off a 2004 release off your 2004 list and discover it in 2005, you could always make up for it by street-teaming the shit out of it.

And if you don't discover it until 2006, you're just karmically screwed.

I don't download any music so I go by the release date in the country I live in.

Therefore I have two albums that were released in 2004 in the US, one album that was released in 2003 in the US and one album that was released in France in 2004, all in my 2005 list.

I don't see a problem with that. It's not like I'm putting Drive By Truckers (UK release 3rd August 2004) on my 2005 list, just albums that were actually released in 2005 like Arcade Fire (UK release 28th Feb 2005).

I reckon you get one chance to put an album on an end of year list. If you got it on import or download a leaked copy on the internet fine, just don't put it on the next year.

Well, Arcade Fire's not showing up on any other best of 2005 list I'm seeing.

Just saying.