If my favorite color is X, can I say that X is the best color?

Depends. If you don't believe in objectively good art, then the best is your favorite and your favorite is the best. If you do, then you may not like art that you believe is objectively good, and your favorite may not be the best. So it's up to you, how you think, what you believe, when putting together a "best of" list.

I lean toward the former pretty heavily, so I see no distinction between my favorite or the best. When I say that album X is the best album of the year, I'm saying "Album X is the best album of the year to me." The reason I believe that is because I don't think there can be a way to verify/prove that Album X is good.

quote:

Originally posted by crob3888:
I lean toward the former pretty heavily, so I see no distinction between my favorite or the best.

Doesn't the title 'best' require that ALL items be judged? Otherwise it's merely 'the best that I'm aware of'.

Isn't that implied? Unless you have listened to every recording ever in existence and can definitively say what's the best record, any mention of what is the "best record" is just gonna mean "of those that I'm aware of".

Then the answer to my initial question is yes. Thanks.

Yellow IS the best color.

You can for colors, since there is certainly no objective quality.

For music, there is more of a split on this. However, certainly some people believe in at least some objectivity, and thus, even if your favorite music is by Katy Perry, you can perceive that it is not the best.

Elitist is right, it's obviously implied. Clearly nobody has listened to everything released this year. I think the amount of music released in a given year is very likely more than the amount of time a year even has.

Anyways, you all are fools. GREEN is clearly the best color.

Red is the best color, but whatever.

I read on Pitchfork that BLUE is the best.

quote:

Originally posted by Shadrach:
I read on Pitchfork that BLUE is the best.

Well aren't you a hipster.

quote:

Originally posted by Misfit:
If my favorite color is X, can I say that X is the best color?

In my experience, most people decide their lists more like this...
"I only listened to 40 albums this year, and here are the 25 I liked:
1. every album Animal Collective ever released
2. did Joanna Newsome release an album this year?
3. What about Jay-Z?
4. this year's Vampire Weekend, as decided by Pitchfork
5. ooh, Fuck Buttons have a new album out... that's all the electronic music I need to listen to
6. the rest of these albums are just okay, but I need 20 more to fill out the list"

That's why they all look the same. I don't think you should even attempt to compile a best albums list unless you've listened to at least 150 albums, with a recommended amount of 300.

quote:

Originally posted by Alan Ranta:

That's why they all look the same. I don't think you should even attempt to compile a best albums list unless you've listened to at least 150 albums, with a recommended amount of 300.

Hmm, I see. And you pay for all 300 of these albums?

I think that saying people should have listened to 300 new albums in a year is a bit ridiculous; that's a new album every day. Which means that at the most, you're probably giving these albums between 1 and 10 listens before you've passed judgement and completely moved on by necessity of hearing the next new thing. That just doesn't seem to be all that great a method for enjoying music, since quite a few albums that I've heard this year took repeated listens (that is, more than 10) for them to sink in and "click."

I've tried to cut down the number of albums I listen to so I can focus on certain albums more, like crob said, so they can sink in.

I probably listened to 100 last year and I'm on pace for probably 125+ this year. Partially had to do with the fact how my schedule worked out this year, I had a lot of opportunities to listen to music, but 300, never in my life.

I draw distinctions between "Best" and "favorite." Best accepts a qualitative, objective judgment I'm submitting while favorite is more influenced by more subjective opinions, associations, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Elitist_Pretentious:

quote:

Originally posted by Alan Ranta:
That's why they all look the same. I don't think you should even attempt to compile a best albums list unless you've listened to at least 150 albums, with a recommended amount of 300.

Hmm, I see. And you pay for all 300 of these albums?

No, most of them were promos, and a good chunk were downloads. The ones I really like, I buy on vinyl.

quote:

Originally posted by crob3888:
I think that saying people should have listened to 300 new albums in a year is a bit ridiculous; that's a new album every day.

There are 365 days in a year, 24 hours in a day, 74 minutes in an album, and thousands of albums released every year. If you're really going to say "here are the 25 best albums that were released this year" and you only listened to 40 albums ten times each, music really isn't that important to you and you have no business making those sorts of lists. You have your priorities, and music isn't in the top three.

Yet, everyone sure likes to think they're so into music, and they're more than happy to put lists together of their predictable taste. These days, music is mostly sold as a fashion accessory [hence, why you can buy vinyl at Urban Outfitters]. It's not what you're listening to, but who you're listening to, and the name on your iPod screen better match the label on your clothes.

However, since I only watch one or two new movies a month, I never put together Oscar predictions or "best films of the year" lists. I suppose I could just watch the same 2 films ten times each and start making lists.

quote:

Originally posted by anbc:
I probably listened to 100 last year and I'm on pace for probably 125+ this year. Partially had to do with the fact how my schedule worked out this year, I had a lot of opportunities to listen to music, but 300, never in my life.

I've reviewed about 150 albums a year for the past five years, and I've listened to at least triple that. Some people have a life; I live for music. That's why these shallow lists taken from such a small sample of the available material are so annoying to me. So few people are willing to put the effort into discovering new music, to hearing the full diversity of what is actually aurally representing the world today. They'd rather listen to the same Animal Collective album that they knew they'd like no matter what was on it four months before it was released two dozen times, and think they have great taste because the handful of albums they listened to ended up on Rolling Stone or Pitchfork's year end list. That's taking the easy way out, and does not develop your own taste. Music is a process of trial and error; it takes chances and often fails. It takes time and effort, and most either don't have the time or don't make the effort, in which case they should not be making "best of" lists.

Let's assume you sleep for the bare minimum 4 hours a day and listen to music the other 20 hours. You claim you listen to 450 albums a year, 150 of which you are reviewing for publication. Let's assume the REALLY low album length of 30 minutes an album, and figure out how many times AT BEST you are listening to these albums this year.

The math works out to...

AT THE BEST (minimum sleep time, low average of 30 minutes an album, and listening to music every moment of the other 20 hours in your day), you are listening to these 450 albums 30 times apiece.

If you were to cut the sleep to 8 hours a day and change the average length of an album to 45 minutes, you're looking at 15 times apiece. At the best.

I'll let everybody draw their own subjective conclusions from those facts.

quote:

Originally posted by Alan Ranta:

quote:

Originally posted by Misfit:
If my favorite color is X, can I say that X is the best color?

In my experience, most people decide their lists more like this...
"I only listened to 40 albums this year, and here are the 25 I liked:
1. every album Animal Collective ever released
2. did Joanna Newsome release an album this year?
3. What about Jay-Z?
4. this year's Vampire Weekend, as decided by Pitchfork
5. ooh, Fuck Buttons have a new album out... that's all the electronic music I need to listen to
6. the rest of these albums are just okay, but I need 20 more to fill out the list"

That's why they all look the same. I don't think you should even attempt to compile a best albums list unless you've listened to at least 150 albums, with a recommended amount of 300.

Oooh! I can't believe I've missed this discussion so far!

I think we all agree on one fact - no one can listen to every album released this year. If you haven't heard every album this year, how can you possibly put together a list of 20, 25, 50 or 100 albums, because there is always the possibility that there is a better album out there. So, why bother?

That sort of thinking is just crap, of course. When I put together my top 100, I am not so pretentious to think that these are the best 100 albums. Period. These are my 100 favorite albums that I listened to this year.

Since none of us can listen to every album released, we all have to use filters to screen the music we listen to. Even our illustrious Alan Ranta uses some sort of filter. Many of us check out albums because they have been highly praised by music publications. There is nothing wrong with that whatsoever. There is nothing wrong with "I picked this up because I heard about it on Pitchfork".

We all post on these boards because (1) we are interested in discovering new music, and (2) we care about music. That makes us qualified to compile a best of list, no matter what sources we learned about music from and no matter how many albums we listen to. If I listened to only 40 albums this year, I am every bit as qualified to create a list on this site as someone who listens to at least 150 albums.

People complain that this lists on this cite are generic and that they are merely regurgitations of what we read on Pitchfork. That's just B.S., because virtually every list is more exciting than what 95% of the record-buying public is listening to. So what if a majority of people on these boards have Grizzly Bear, The Dirty Projectors, Animal Collective, and The xx in their top 10? That's just a reflection that these albums are highly regarded by critics and music fans alike. There are still plenty of music fans that will list a portion or none of those albums. [For the record, I have listened to all of those albums and none will make my top 10].

quote:

These are my 100 favorite albums that I listened to this year.

Spot on, Troy.

These lists can't possibly be definitive in any capacity because they are all "incomplete" from a perspective of absolutism. The lists that people make are meant to be personal, "here's my favorite albums from this year, and that's all I can offer." I think all types of lists are necessary. Take for example somebody who is telling you what the 5 best records were from the 20 that they listened to. They probably listened to all of those records MORE, and thus know them more intimately and are able to say with more certainty what their favorites (the best) were. Then there's somebody like me or Troy or anbc, who listen to 100 or more records a year, and will be presenting a top 20 at the end of the year. So, while we have the benefit of listening to more albums than the person who only listened to 20 records, we have the disadvantage of not knowing the records as intimately as somebody who listened to a select few. Keep in mind, this is assuming that both groups (larger number of albums vs. fewer number of albums) are spending the same amount of time listening to the music. There are advantages and disadvantages to each, and there comes a point when I choose to get closer to a particular record instead of seeking out a new one.

And that's what this comes down to. You can have a few best friends who comes over for a few beers and some chips during the Monday Night Football game, or you can go to a party and meet a whole bunch of new people, but you'll never get to know them really well. Who can honestly criticize either group for choosing one over the other? When it comes to music, I think that listening to too much can be just as bad as listening to too little. It's up to the individual to decide to what degree they favor intimacy (spending more time with some records, sacrificing time where you could be listening to a larger number of records) over quantity (listening to a large number of records, sacrificing your opportunity to get to know the records with further listens). We're all trying to find a good middle-ground that works for us, whether that's 450 albums a year, 150 albums a year, or just 50.

FoT, crob: I totally agree.

As members/comrades/friends on these boards, we start to see where each other's tastes lie. So, say if you're in the mood for something that rocks a little harder one day, you may check out _______'s list. Or maybe you want to see if there's anything worth listening to on the pop stations, _______ is your guy! These are documents that can be checked for future reference. So maybe, just maybe, you'll find something on someone's list that you're not familiar with, check it out and love it. That's how I discovered last year's Erykah Badu record.

Besides, ya know... This stuff is, well, for fun. Shit, unless some of you have editors you turn your posts into or something...