i read this as part of a short interview with matt damon today. and even though he's talking about film, i immediately thought about how it can be applied to music. is there anything, aside from self-promoting reissues and the like, that re-evaluates music years after initial releases? the national recording registry tackles this somewhat, but i'm not familiar with anything that says "in whatever year, these music recordings are the ones that actually withstood the test of time and are the best." (although, i have to say i was a little surprised to see that daydream nation is in the national recording registry.)

like, who in their right mind would vote for steely dan as having the best album of 2000 in 2010? donald fagen? what about no one? i'd love to see something like that, but i know it'd never happen.

Only the dorkiest music dorks could pull off such a thing.

Which reminds me, aren't we about due for our semi annual obner group project?

I would imagine it depends on what the awards were to accomplish.. I mean, besides recognition by the biz... who would give a shit if they won an award ten years later?

I think Matt Damon is over-analyzing awards. Of course they're fallible 5/10/20 years on. The idea is living in the moment in time though. Exploring what is relevant at that point in time. By voting later on, you're giving in to reconstructionist history. The Steely Dan record is really a bad example (same as if you would've pulled the Jethro Tull over Metallica card), as it wasn't an indication of anything going on at the time.

For instance, "Raw Power" would seen now as a great, and meaningful record--but in 1973, very few people were listening to it. I understand what Damon is getting at, I just feel like it defeats the purpose and rewrites what people were actually into at the time...which was in '73, Elton John.

I might because 'Two Against Nature' is a great album, one I still listen to and if that KonstantinL fellow, who I believe shares many of my beliefs on these things, had continued his so called 'K-Ranks' it would have been 11th on the list. Having said that 2000 was a particularly good year so it wasn't actually the top 2000 release on the list.

Anyway the point I'm making is don't be ragging on The Dan, man.

Under the banner of 'Evaluating Music Years Later' I suppose I could add that I bought The Kinks 'Arthur: Or The Rise And Fall Of The British Empire' a couple of years ago listened to it and it remained lying around ignored until about a month ago when I put it on for reasons unknown. Most of those Kinks reissues suffer from having dozens of alternative takes and bonus tracks tacked on in an unsympathetic manner and I suddenly realised if you programmed them out and listen to the album as it was meant to be heard ITS ABSOLUTELY FUCKING BRILLIANT. I've never particularly been a fan of The Kinks albums, although perhaps I have to go back now, but 'Arthur' is astonishingly good. Genius isn't a word that should be bandied about to often but I think it applies in this case.

was just thinking about this.

Hey, awesome. Now enjoy the incredible run that is Something Else through Lola.

ooooh whatsis?

see: http://www.obner.org/board/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=44201

I was thinking about this too. The group projects are my favorite things about Obner.

Ditto.

Haven't these things seen a steady decline in participation?

Still, I'm generally down for whatever.

this reminds me i have to finish reviewing shiv's mix.