Who's sitting P&J out this year?

Dec 17, 2012 18:39

Dave over on Tumblr:

I like voting in it - stayed on board for the Jackin’ Pop year (voted in both polls) and have thought about staying on this year, since for better or worse it’s the only huge critics poll. Glenn McDonald is still doing stats, which alone kind of makes me want to participate. Just wondering if anyone is staging a parallel poll ( Read more... )

cumulative advantage, paul krugman, idolator and p&j and country critics, poll prelims 2012

Leave a comment

Chuck Pazzing And Jopping anonymous December 18 2012, 18:11:35 UTC
Still don't know what I'm going to do. Nate Patrin had posted thuswise on Facebook last night: "A suggestion for people abstaining from or concocting protest ballots for Pazz & Jop: fill out a ballot, but put the least-touted, most-underrated favorites of yours on it. Even if you think Frank Ocean or Kendrick Lamar or Sky Ferreira or Fiona Apple put out the 'best' music of the year, that doesn't matter; they'll receive their hard-earned due elsewhere. What matters is using one of the most well-organized and public polls in music criticism to deliberately tilt things away from the consensus while still being honest about stuff you like that might not get exposure otherwise ( ... )

Reply

Re: Chuck Pazzing And Jopping anonymous December 18 2012, 18:27:33 UTC
(And fwiw, of course I know "consensus" is a lazy misnomer. But it was late, and I was too tired to think of a better word.)

And by "It's been decades since they have," I guess I meant at least *three* decades, or ever since I've been voting, or something. Though at least until the mid '80s, I like a pretty decent percentage of the albums and singles that wind up in the P&J Top 30 and/or 40.

Reply

Re: Chuck Pazzing And Jopping anonymous December 18 2012, 18:31:45 UTC
(Or Top However-Many-Singles-They-Listed.)

Btw, to answer Dave's Tumblr question: There is not, to my knowledge, any alternate poll. Though there was apparently a new Hinder album this year, and Anthony Miccio has asked people to vote for it again.

Reply

Re: Chuck Pazzing And Jopping skyecaptain December 18 2012, 18:46:35 UTC
The relevance of P&J has even shifted since I started following it, around the turn of the last decade (like lots of things on the internet) to a long tail enterprise ( ... )

Reply

Re: Chuck Pazzing And Jopping koganbot December 18 2012, 21:33:17 UTC
all the boring people who vote for consensus faves just because they're lazy and can't be bothered to think of anything else to vote for -- which gives those albums votes they don't really deserve
I'm as much a chronic outsider as anyone who got an invite, but I don't see people voting for consensus faves any more now than people were or weren't back when 30 or so critics were fooling themselves into believing in the greatness of Who's Next and The Basement Tapes and Songs In The Key Of Life. People vote for what they think is good. As for their choices gathering into crowds, last year's top five (tUnE-yArDs w h o k i l l, PJ Harvey Let England Shake, Jay-Z and Kanye West Watch the Throne, Wild Flag Wild Flag [whatever that is], Tom Waits Bad As Me [I think seeing this in the poll results is the first I even knew he had a new album]) is no more or less evidence of this than 1971's (The Who Who's Next, The Rolling Stones Sticky Fingers, Rod Stewart Every Picture Tells A Story, Van Morrison Tupelo Honey, John Lennon Imagine). The major ( ... )

Reply

(Chuck Again) anonymous December 19 2012, 17:39:40 UTC
What you’re saying makes a lot of sense, Frank. And it had already occured to me that, if the stats Dave is citing is true, and winning P&J albums in recent years have actually drawn far lower rather than higher percentages of total votes, that voters may actually be acting more, not less, independently - that the voting has become less of an perfunctory daisy chain, or whatever. Though I would think the real statistic to look at might be the centricity rankings that Glenn McDonald computes every year - whether more voters are bunched toward the top end than used to be. (Then again, Billy Altman, whose ballot you cited, was ranked 185 out of about 700 voters in the chart I’m looking at, for what it’s worth - so his ballot skews much closer to the overall results than most ballots do . And right, even then, his ballot doesn’t seem to be particularly slavish or conventional .) So I wonder why have this perception, which statistically, doesn’t seem to hold much water. Partly it’s that it seems like, these days, it’s impossible not to ( ... )

Reply

Re: (Chuck Again) anonymous December 19 2012, 17:41:08 UTC
"...the stats Dave is citing ARE true," obviously. (Among other typos, I'm sure.)

Reply

Re: (Chuck Again) koganbot December 19 2012, 19:13:19 UTC
Partly it's that it seems like, these days, it's impossible not to see groundswells of support for certain albums (certain albums I almost never care about - which is probably significant) snowballing through the year, and especially picking up steam once publications' and websites' best-of lists start hitting the street around Thanksgiving
Oh yes, this is definitely happening; and what I was saying in my LVW piece was that the snowballing will happen, it's inevitable, there's no way to prevent it. So if nothing else was at work, we'd expect there to be as much or more clustering at the top as there'd been in the early '70s, when there was less information on what other people were listening to.

But there are some countermovements at work, which are (1) the world is at our fingertips, so anyone can hear way more music from many more places, and (2) there's such a large pool of music critics that many more subcults and minicountertrends can develop and have impact, pulling the voting away from just three or so main clusters of ( ... )

Reply

Re: (Chuck Again) skyecaptain December 19 2012, 19:33:17 UTC
My stat is way more rudimentary than Glenn's centricity ranking -- basically just tallies what percentage of the overall number of voters the top two albums got. You see a sharp decline between the 90s and the 00s.

What I think is probably true is that there is more general consensus for a pool of, say, twenty albums. Centricity only measures how close you voted to the Top Ten. I would bet that if you expanded that to twenty or thirty, you'd be able to test how strong the clusters around those albums actually are. Problem is that there are no stats before 2008, when the pattern I was seeing by just taking the #1 and #2 slots had been established for about four years already.

Reply

Re: (Chuck Again) koganbot December 19 2012, 22:36:11 UTC
What I think is probably true is that there is more general consensus for a pool of, say, twenty albums
Why do you say this? What's your evidence, and what's the comparison? Are you saying that in '87 an album that a lot of people didn't give a shit about could nonetheless finish top twenty on the basis of the people who liked it, but now near everyone agrees a top twenty album belongs there? Why in the world would you think so?

I'd assume that lots in the top twenty evokes a "why that?" or "what's that?"* among the many who didn't vote for it, and fewer now are likely to have even heard number twenty than in 1987 (first year I voted), when we had less access to a glut of sound from everywhere.

Or are you saying that something that places top twenty has more agreement among the people who've heard it than something in the top twenty in 1987? How can you possibly know this, and why do you think our psychology has changed since then, anyway?

Or are you saying that, if we take all the people who also vote for an album or single I vote ( ... )

Reply

Re: (Chuck Again) skyecaptain December 19 2012, 22:44:42 UTC
Yeah, I rescind that -- I think it's more my list fatigue talking. It feels like I see the same albums a lot before P&J publishes, but that speaks more to my own tendency to look at all those lists (and accordingly listen to the albums, usually) than anything else. "I've seen this before" is the result of my access to the stuff I've seen.

Reply

Re: (Chuck Again) anonymous December 19 2012, 22:48:45 UTC
there is more general consensus for a pool of, say, twenty albums

Yeah, so maybe what's worn me down is that a majority if not plurality of critics nowadays seem to gravitate around a certain aesthetic that's a ticket to boredom to me, if not necessarily always around a particular album. And as Frank suggests, it's not like critics haven't always gravitated around specific aesthetics -- in the 1978 Pazz & Jop poll results, which I think are amazing regardless (despite leaving out lots and lots of just-as-great 1978 albums), the top 26 finishers were rock albums (a good chunk of them punk-related) by white people. (Number 27 was Funkadelic.) That's probably more homogenous than Pazz & Jop has been in forever, but I'd still take it over any Pazz & Jop Top 30 since the '80s, at least.

Reply

Re: (Chuck Again) anonymous December 20 2012, 01:36:29 UTC
Oops, Dave quote now voided apparently. But most of what I wrote under it still stands, I think.

Reply

Re: (Chuck Again) skyecaptain December 20 2012, 02:34:55 UTC
This seems more reasonable, and I think it connects to the idea that who's leading the (milder) winning albums voting pack has changed over time. Which IIRC is partly what your "consensus" article(which was only called that in the headline) was talking about -- the changing of the guard from the boring-and-I-know-it daily grind reviewers and the boring-and-I-think-it's-provocative indie guard. (I still like a lot of indie OK, I just no longer think it's usually daring or important.)

Reply

Re: (Chuck Again) koganbot December 19 2012, 20:00:10 UTC
As for laziness, I'd say that through the early and mid '70s Pazz & Jop's voting pool was likely above average in originality and intelligence, but that's just because it was still close to the pioneering days of rockwrite, and the originators with new ideas are the ones who'll risk 'em on a new enterprise. But of course, with P&J (as opposed to the music section itself) Christgau was seeking the average; in the early-to-mid '70s he just didn't have access to it yet. Averageness came later. But I doubt the species has gotten lazier in the last thirty-five years. And as for people voting for what they should rather than what they like, I doubt this is more a factor now than in the past. I think most people mostly vote their guts (and listen with their guts); and most people's guts are as middlebrow and conventional as the rest of their bodies. They find what they vote for very moving. I wish they'd use their minds more.

Reply

Re: (Chuck Again) anonymous December 19 2012, 23:00:31 UTC
I have to wonder, though, whether the electorate hasn't gotten dumber over the last ten years or so -- Seems to me like at some point the influx of anybody-can-do-it blog critics diluted the pool. (Not that your average blog critics are dumber than your average print hack, except that...well, a lot of them are.) I definitely don't get nearly as much out of the comments as I used to. Though part of that could be me losing interest, part of it could be no Xgau around anymore to select the best comments and arrange them into a coherent conversation, part of it could be voters (like me -- I haven't sent in comments since I left) just not being as inspired anymore to come up with good comments, what with the comments not appearing in print, Christgau not providing a backboard to bounce off of, the New Times draining life from the Voice, there being no real conversation to join into, the Internet providing better conversations all year long to join into, etc ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up