No window yesterday, and stink of failure has infiltrated SYi2. But I'm not going to beat myself up about it.
For today's window we're going to have an award for the worst music list of the year. It was close run thing, with Q magazine pushing hard with their top ten headed by the dull, dull dull Coldplay. In a great year for music, the only people think that X+Y is the best album of the year are those who have only bought that one, KT Tunstall and James Blunt.
However, the award goes to the Observer's Music Monthly magazine. The problem with the list is that it's the top 100 albums of the year (Read it for yourself here). What's the point? Why not have a top 20 and then list other albums of note? By rating all 100, you're just going to be so very very wrong. Like putting Robbie at 37 and Bright Eyes at 46. Wrong. Or including Goldie Looking Chain (90) but not mentioning the Super Furries, The National or Wolf Parade. Double Wrong. The no.1 isn't too bad (Anthony and the Johnsons), but how can any list rate Oasis (16) 29 places higher than Bloc Party and 46 places higher than the Kaiser Chiefs. Strike 3. I could go on and on and on.
So, although the Q list was very wrong in it's no.1, the sheer size of the Observer list opens itself up to an almost infinite points of wrongness, and therefore wins the 2005 SYi2 award for "Worst Music List of the Year".
This is how a top album list should be done.
1 comment:
I was just reading Q - Coldplay is no way album of the year, but it is not totally awful, just a bit dull. A far worse crime is Oasis at number 4. Number 4!!!!! Heinous. At least Arcarde Fire and Franz made the top ten. That Gorillaz album's quite good too, but not a number 2. Thanks for pointing you no-existent readers in the direction of my list. There they can join with my non-existent readers in agreeing that my list is 100 times better than Q's. You are a nice man.
Post a Comment