Can we do something about this BEA? - Music

BrandonMiaow

Although I don't employ the one-album-per-artist rule (well, oddly enough, I did it for Joanna Newsom but only her, perhaps because although her other albums are good, I figured the space could be better filled by other artists) I really get Lethal's point. Once you've heard as much music as he has, it becomes just a big pile of great albums. I've only heard a fraction of what he has and I'm already noticing this effect. It isn't dishonest to try to make your chart diverse rather than not, to me it's just displaying different and wider aspects of your personality. (which, I think charts are tied to, will expand on in a response to Puncture's chart talk question)
However, piling on a bunch of albums by your favourite artist is just as valid. You tend to have an emotional attachment to artists you love. I'll have three albums by Orion Rigel Dommisse on my chart by the time she releases her new album at the end of the year (I don't even doubt it), and if she keeps making music, that number will probably grow to a ridiculous and overwhelming amount.

sp4cetiger

albummaster wrote:

Tbh, a factor in all the charts is the recency effect, and people's overall charts are at fault as much as anything else for the bias towards newer albums (maybe more so, since these charts contribute far more points than a year/decade chart).

Very true. Just for everyone's reference, year charts contribute only 0.35% of the points for OK Computer, while decade charts contribute 2.9%. Less well known albums get a bit more of a bump from decade and year charts (~10% and 5% for The Wild Hunt, for example), but when we're thinking about overall rankings, I think the decade and year charts can usually be ignored.

I totally agree that there's a recency bias, but the question is really one of site philosophy. If users are more aware of recent albums, perhaps those albums deserve a higher ranking. I guess it really depends on what you want the overall chart to reflect. I like that BEA emphasizes recent albums, just because there are already plenty of other recognized charts that focus on classic albums (e.g., Rolling Stone). In my mind, the biggest downside to the BEA overall chart is the lack of genre variety, but that's not really something that can be fixed.

Romanelli
Bone Swah

Gender: Male
Location: Broomfield, Colorado

Moderator

sp4cetiger wrote:

Very true. Just for everyone's reference, year charts contribute only 0.35% of the points for OK Computer, while decade charts contribute 2.9%. Less well known albums get a bit more of a bump from decade and year charts (~10% and 5% for The Wild Hunt, for example), but when we're thinking about overall rankings, I think the decade and year charts can usually be ignored.

I totally agree that there's a recency bias, but the question is really one of site philosophy. If users are more aware of recent albums, perhaps those albums deserve a higher ranking. I guess it really depends on what you want the overall chart to reflect. I like that BEA emphasizes recent albums, just because there are already plenty of other recognized charts that focus on classic albums (e.g., Rolling Stone). In my mind, the biggest downside to the BEA overall chart is the lack of genre variety, but that's not really something that can be fixed.

I don't think that newer (or older) albums deserve any kind of a higher ranking over any other albums.
_________________
May we all get to heaven
'Fore the devil knows we're dead...

sp4cetiger

Romanelli wrote:

I don't think that newer (or older) albums deserve any kind of a higher ranking over any other albums.

I can't tell what you're trying to advocate. Newer albums get a boost relative to older albums because more people are aware of them (that's the recency bias we're talking about). Are you saying albummaster should try to nullify that bias by manipulating the rankings to favor older ones?