smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | jchasin@nyc.rr.com |
| Subject | Re: Top 20 of 2004 poll update |
| Date | Thu, 06 Jan 2005 16:22:19 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain us-ascii (1.6 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
----- Original Message -----
From: David Bash <bashpop@earthlink.net>
> Yeah, I had the Sleep Station CD (which Jeff had recommended I
> check out) at
> around #75 on my list
David: How the dickens do you get a chance to devote enough attention to so many individual albums that you can meaningfully rank all the way down to 75? Like you (but I'm sure to a lesser extent) a lot of music passes through my home, and if it doesn't grab me on the first listen or two, I may never bother with it again. I'm sure I miss some good stuff; both U2 and Green Day missed with me on first spin, and are still awaiting spin 2. FOr all I know, I'll end up loving them. But I may also never get the chance to find out.
> Which brings me to a question, which I think I've asked on this
> list a few
> years ago: when people rank their albums, do they rank albums that are
> consistently good, but don't have any or many great tracks, above
> thosealbums that have a few great tracks, but several that aren't
> very good?
I've stopped trying to adhere to the pretext or conceit that I can objectively rate the quality of releases. Instead, my personal rankings are based on two things: how important the record was to me in the year (basically, how often did I play it; was there a 2-month period when I left it in the CD player?); and, how likely am I to continue listening to it 5, even 10 years from now. When I told you at IPO NY that SMiLE was my record of the year, based on these two criteria-- especially the latter-- it really wasn't close. Is it the "best" album of the year? Who knows.
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.