I’m marking each of the singles out of 10. Marks will vary according to my mood and circumstances as well as by the quality of the record. No consistency is intended and none should be assumed – take them as seriously as you like. If you’re registered and logged in, you can give your OWN mark out of 10 to each record, and the aggregate shows up on the FT Readers Top 100 view.

Baby jumps:   1955   1960   1965   1970   1975   1980   1985   1990   1995


1 3 4 5 All
  1. 101
    Tom on 20 Jan 2014 #

    Yes, I like the analysis of the problem in that post – the solution (let’s listen to vaporwave!) rather less, though I do enjoy that James Ferraro album that got talked up in the Wire a couple of years ago, and a lot of the Ghost Box stuff.

    I think the current charts – including the critical lists – are firmly in the post-progressive mode, though: the bad stuff as well as the good. We’ll get there eventually, I hope! The Retromania argument is right in that the big shift has been a disruption in the technology of distribution rather than (as in previous shifts) changes in the technology of production – but I think (obviously) the analysis of the resulting landscape is too pessimistic.

  2. 102

    Back to site glitches: aren’t the recent comments all showing in the wrong labelled spaces at the moment?

    Update: oops no they aren’t, but I think the leading should be tweaked above and below the labels, so that they more obviously adhere to above than below.

    (It’s kind of obvious which goes where once you read them but it still threw me at a quick glance)

  3. 103
    admin on 21 Jan 2014 #

    we’ve moved the post title underneath the comment, and steve will be styling it to make that more obvious in due course

  4. 104
    Tommy Mack on 21 Jan 2014 #

    I think it may still prove confusing.

  5. 105
    Tom on 29 Apr 2014 #

    Cornershop clinging onto the Top 50 here, but comfortably (AFAICS) the favourite 90s single so far.

  6. 106
    Cumbrian on 29 Apr 2014 #

    Killer “only” 0.11 (or 8 places) behind. That could be quite close or it could be quite far away dependent on the number of people who have voted on either/both. How many 10s would Killer need to move past Cornershop? Or how many 1s would Cornershop need to slip behind?

  7. 107
    flahr on 29 Apr 2014 #

    #101: When you say the current charts seem to hold to a post-progressive view: surely ANY chart could be described by “some of it sounds like new stuff, some of it sounds like old stuff”? I can’t see much distinction b/w “why can’t this old stuff still be in play?”, “retro”, “revivalism”, and plain old “influence” (except perhaps as judgements of quality).

    (I read the linked article – always nice to be reminded that merely not being S**** R******* is no defence against writing like S**** R*******)

  8. 108
    Conrad on 2 Jun 2014 #

    I’m expecting the number 1 position to be seriously troubled when we get to the summer of 2003 but not before

  9. 109
    Cumbrian on 2 Jun 2014 #

    I’m not expecting anything to trouble the number 1 position unless a bunch of people go into the I Feel Love thread and start marking a load of 1s next to it to bring it down to earth. I also think that the closer we get to the present, the less consensus around what is good we’re going to get, which is why I don’t think anything is going to trouble IFL unless there is some down-weighting going on.

  10. 110
    Andrew Farrell on 2 Jun 2014 #

    Woe be with the man who underestimates Tomcraft…

1 3 4 5 All

Add your comment

(Register to guarantee your comments don't get marked as spam.)


Required (Your email address will not be published)

Top of page