Not sure if missed this in one of the umpteen posts ...i presume we are voting into a hat? Shall i make up some little chits (complete with hanging chads) with names on them that can be re-used throughout the evening?

Hilarious Marc I was having the exact same thought. I think I'm quite likely to vote for a comepetitor's song - it's the song that wins, not the person, in my mind. I did this in the decade competition. Stu are you licking your chops at the prospect of all of us wankers voting against our own tunes?

I say we all vote all the time. The reality is that i am so filled with self loathing that the chances of my voting for myself are slim. I am currently making the mistake of listening to my picks in the background as i am working and am growing quite sick of them! ...as great as they are.

Stu, just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean you aren't being followed. I think 10 rounds is ambitious but do-able, provided we stay on track and don't start changing the rules mid-stream or someone knocks over Brian's shiny new turntable.

As for your voting suggestion, I say we allow people to continue to vote during their play and force them to be honest. Yes, there will be inclination to vote for oneself regardless of how you may be outmatched by another song but hey, that's one of those ethical choices you have to live with, and only adds to the drama of the contest.

apologies if I seem paranoid...memories of the bataan march at dereks made me a little worried , but starting at 6 and being efficient should solve it....
one last thought aboput rules.....
What do you think about not being able to vote when its your matchup... that still leaves 4 people to vote and elliminates selfish voting affecting the score.... as much as we are all honorable types capable of voting against ourselves if we feel bested.....lets face it its only human to be swayed by the prospect of a win especially at the end of the night if its close...
comments?
s

Per Derek's note, I'd also like to go a minimum of ten rounds. There should be lots of time to do so (simple math would say we can go twelve rounds by midnight), and if we go past a little midnight, well, I'd be OK with that. I have a gut feeling I'll be up a bit later than 12:30, one way or another.

Just to confirm start time, lads. Mike will be leaving his house at 2iish so in normal traffic would arrive around 6:00. So let's gather then. He may be later, in which case, we'll drink beer and play music until he arrives. And yes, get organized. And then when he arrives....we'll drink beer and play music.

Fair enough Kyle.

As a discussion point, it will be interesting to see who can come up with artists that have made significant musical contributions in BOTH their years.

I am actually fine with allowing any number of songs of any length as i think we are going to be a little self regulating over the matter. After all this discussion, no one is going to risk playing a liturgy of epics for fear of losing the interest of the crowd, that's my take, buy it or not. The truth is, when you start to look at the specifics, certain years were known for their "short and sweets" and others for the opus, it seems unfair to arbitrarily preclude the great songs merely because they were too long to fit in your format. Everyone knows that simply because a song is long, it does not make it better. If you wanted to set a time limit on the songs you almost needed to do it before we chose our years.


You guys need to stop being such slack ass lazy digitty buggers ...if this thing needs to run to 4:00 am to get to the root of what is a great song, so be it. (please note the sarcastic tone in this last sentence)

Yes, I can be there for 6pm. Let's do this!!

thanks Kyle...didnt spot that....
There is also a email trail discussing going to Brians for 6pm not 7pm.... Mike may be early and if we can get started early and be efficient with setting up the tracks and voting we should be able to avoid an all night slog

Mike you are good to gosong length wise except not the 23 minute track...cant think what that would be...???
Kyle if you can be early too that would be great....Brian is ordering pizzas through the night...
....

Thanks Deeman. Stu, have commented on your post and answered (hopefully) your questions in the comment section. Will wait to hear from others before modifying and reposting the latest, and hopefully last, version of the rules.

Nice one Kyle. I think you've nailed the match-up problem.

In terms of running time for songs I'm happy to leave it wide open. As long as each track is not a 10 minute slog I don't think we should be restricting it too much. Given that most songs from 1979 are about 90 seconds long we should even out over the course of the night.

The 2 songs from one year to 1 song from the other works for me also.

I'd like to go 10 rounds if we can regardless of when the last one commences. Stuart, you will have built up an insurmountable lead before half-time anyway (a la Manchester United) and will be free to leave anytime after 10pm.

Please comment on the following 3 points;

1) though the current 5 minutes time + 2 eight min songs) works fine for me...you may want to comment on Mikes and my 3 attempts to change this for Mike ...see past threads from myself and Mike... if you dont want to change it - fine - then tell him so he can decide what to bring... It will be hard for him to decide what to bring if you guys dont at least tell him at least yes or no...

2) Brians comments on decade ratios ... i think the mentioned 2/3 1/3 ratio songs reasonable and would be happy w that...

3) please comment on the last round being played at midnight is the final round even if it is round 9...or if you prefer , the last round played is at 12:30 or 1pm if you want ...but lets pick a time limit as otherwise i fear we will go all night. ....... remember the night at Dereks apartment all those years ago for besty albums of all time ..thoughts...?

s

Potential solution to ensure both random but equal matchups:

With five players and 3 potential matchups per round, there are 15 potential pairings total:

1. Brian-Derek
2. Brian-Kyle
3. Brian-Marc
4. Brian-Mike
5. Brian-Stu
6. Derek-Kyle
7. Derek-Marc
8. Derek-Mike
9. Derek-Stu
10. Kyle-Marc
11. Kyle-Mike
12. Kyle-Stu
13. Marc-Mike
14. Marc-Stu
15. Mike-Stu

I print out cards with each pairing, we fold them, put them into a hat, bowl...whatever, and we pull them randomly. Since there will be a total of 10 rounds, with 3 pairings per round, or 30 pairings total, I'll print out two sets of the above pairings, drop them into the hat and once the pairing is removed from the hat, that's the pairing from it's discarded (recycled responsibly, of course). For the second set of prints I will reverse the order of the names in the pairing (i.e in the second set, 'Stu-Mike', 'Stu-Marc', etc...

The name that appears first in the pairing will play first.

Think this will ensure fairness in that:

• we all face each other the same amount of times
• the order in which we have to play a song first is equal and fair for each matchup
  
• when we face each other is completely random, so it introduces element of surprise that will require strategy, decisions as to when to bring out (what you perceive to be) the big trump card/song, when to play a slower song, etc. For example, Brian and I could face each other in rounds 1 and 2 (and then never again) or we could face each other in the first round but not again until the tenth round. The strategy then shifts--do I save a particular song or year for a particular opponent. If Brian uses up 2 songs from 1978 in his first two rounds and then has to play a song from 2005 (can't play the same year three rounds in a row, see previous posted rule, assume we agree on) in the third round, he's not going to know who he'll face in that third round until we draw.

Hope you like this idea. I will do all the printing and prep to bring this stuff to the session. Thinking if it works, we can always do it again next year with different year pairings!

Oh yes I see your post now Kyle. All of this looks good by me. Whether it's 3 or 5 before the first tally rounds I'm less fussed. Three provides earlier feedback, but may distract me from my regular trips to the fridge for beer. So we'll wait to see what others think.


In terms of playback options, just to reiterate there is a new turntable for those of us with old years and older vinyl. It sounds pretty nice, just got it last night. I'll also have "the cord" for playing your Ipod (booooring) or CD player. Online streaming should work as well if that's of interest.

I like the quick vote idea - 30 second limit, don't add them until after round five. Perfect.

Nobody commented on the need for restrictions by year. Yay or nay on that?

Like the suggestions here, and think we're getting close to a final format. I'll restate after every revision. Hopefully, we'll have this hammered out before Thursday so we can read, review, suggest any final tweaks. Here's a modification of what I posted, incorporating Derek and Marc's suggestions on the point-scoring, which is good and ensures that, even in the scenario that Derek outlines, where Stu comes up badly against him in every round, Herr Watson at least garners at least one vote (presuming he can bring himself to vote for himself).

With regards to randomly ending up with the same opponent repeatedly, that tend to happen. So we either need to decide to allow randomness to a point, then intervene with a rule like, 'can't face the same opponent more than 3 times', though not sure how you resolve that once it happens and other matchups are already decided.

An alternative: since we happen to have arrived at 10 rounds total and we have a total of 5 possible matchups per person, maybe we say we each have to face an opponent twice. Open to either scenario. Just no complaining if you don't like your repeat matchup.

I'll print out and bring some tear sheets that we can use, with each person's name and round listed, in order to help keep track of the voting (and ensure that someone just doesn't repeatedly toss their own name in multiple times per round). Each person will then get 10 sheets of six names, with the round listed by the name, that they can then tear off and place in the hat, bowl, pot, dutchie, etc. Should expedite the process and cut down on penmanship errors.

Revised Rules

1) Names of each player are written on pieces of paper and placed in a hat. Matchups are randomly selected by draw and order of spins then occurs in the order of the draw. For an example, let's assume the names are chosen as follows: Mike, Derek, Brian, Kyle, Marc, Stuart. Mike then plays a song from one of his decades, followed by Derek. Assuming we stick with the random assignment.
2) We vote on which of the two songs just played that we like better; votes are tossed into the hat, and we move on to the next two songs. Votes are entered but not tallied until the end of the 5th round; Derek's suggestion of waiting until 5th round. I like this but suspect some will want to know how they are doing before getting halfway through the tourney. Perhaps we count after 3 rounds instead? Provides enough suspense while also ensuring people have time to adjust if they feel that their songs are 'cutting it' with the group.
3) We move onto the next matchup, Brian v. Kyle, then Marc v. Stu.
4) A giant board records point totals after they are tallied
5) We move onto the next round of pairings, either randomly assigned or actually assigned.

Suggestions for additional rules:

-Year requirement: Suggested modification: Player has the option of whatever year to play in the matchup, but cannot play the same year three times consecutively.

-Song Length: You may exceed the 5 minute length no more than twice in the contest. All songs will be cut off after 8 minutes. Players have the option of fast forwarding in order to highlight a section of the long song if they wish. Assume everyone is okay with this one.

-Tie-breaker at the end of the rounds: If two or more players are tied in points at the end of 10 rounds, a sudden death final round occurs where each surviving player plays one song (chosen by a random selection) and we vote on the best played. The tied players do not get a vote in this round (that way, if an odd number are tied, we have a chance of quickly determining a winner).
Assume we're okay with this one as well.

all good to me...( i think Derek and marc are saying the same thing...... ) I too like the suspence idea a lot ....

Only 2 comments...

lets go to songs limited to 6 minutes and lets not penalise Mike if he has to cut a song short...ie we will likely know the song and dont need to listen to all 8 minutes of it for Mike to get his win...should we approve of his choice of course...

I like Dereks idea of keeping it moving without tallys for a while... i think we will be a lot longer than midnight if we waste time deciding on our vote too... if we take 2 minutes to vote after each round that adds 60 minutes of time to the night over 30 head to head battles....plus time queing up songs.... we may be here way into the morning...
perhaps we say the last round is the round that is in play at midnight....thereby finishing up before 1 am....it may only be round 8 or 9 but that also adds an element of stategy...maybe we also say you have to vote within 30 secounds of the end of the song and there is no arguing historic points or cultural bullshit... the songs are judged without commentary by the player..?
What do you think?

Hey Marc that's exactly my point. We vote as you say after each head to head battle. Didn't I make that clear. What I'm saying is we don't stop every round to tally votes. Maintain a bit of suspense until we're a good chunk of the way in. At least for a while we're just playing tunes and voting and not stopping to count up little bits of paper. Keep things moving along.

I prefer that we do the voting after each head-to-head battle. If we get the system down and keep it simple and don't make a big deal of it like you guys do in book club , (ouch!) we can be doing the voting and tally as the next round is starting up. Keep it moving. I prefer that the vote take place on a pairing before your thoughts get tainted by subsequent plays. Hell, i don't care!!!!!!! i'll vote when i want, and you can count it when you want.

I prefer Marc's idea vis-a-vis scoring the rounds. Potentially 6 points to be had if everyone votes for your song over your opponents. Also means that even in a tight battle you can still pick up 2 points rather than a zero should the vote come in at 4-2 in your opponents favour.

I also think that for the first 5 rounds we simply play the music, vote each round then tally points and break for pizza when we're 2 to 3 hours in. Then we tally at the end of every 2 rounds subsequently, leaving it all in the mix for round 10.

To expedite the voting we simply have each gents name 10 times on a piece of paper and simply throw it in the hat/pail after each 2 song battle voting for your preferred song.

My only question would be do we draw names in each of the 10 rounds for our dance partner? What if I draw Stuart each and every round? Other than I garner maximum points available.

Nice Kyle, thanks. On the point of allocation between the years, rather than a rigid 50/50 allocation between years, I had proposed a maximum 2/3 - 1/3 refreshed after each three songs - so you would have had to play one of each year by the end of the third round. And the same holds at the end of the sixth and ninth rounds. I offered this up only to allow a bit more flexibility as we play....plus personally I've had more fun diving into 1978 and so my preference would be to feature that year more. F05 has proven to be just a bit too recent to feel like as much of a "journey", if you'll pardon the gay self-actualization semantic. I'd also be happy to open it up further - ie play whatever year you want. Strong supporters or objectors to any of these suggestions - 50/50 , 67/33, wide open?

I like the Big Board idea. Any volunteers to bring a piece of bristol board?

My preference in these things is to Keep It Simple, so let's avoid a system where the points change, graduate, or even go beyond the simple 1 point for a win, 1/2 for a tie, 0 for a loss.

Think it's worthwhile summarizing the decisions on the voting order, pairing selection, time limits, etc. before heading into Friday as I can easily see varying interpretations resulting in disappointment, anger when an unforeseen change to perceived structure throws one strategy completely out the window.

Here's my understanding of the way this is going to work, based on my reading of the last few posts:

1) Names of each player are written on pieces of paper and placed in a hat. Matchups are randomly selected by draw and order of spins then occurs in the order of the draw. For an example, let's assume the names are chosen as follows: Mike, Derek, Brian, Kyle, Marc, Stuart. Mike then plays a song from one of his decades, followed by Derek.
2) We vote on which of the two songs we like better, a vote is recorded and we move onto the next matchup, Brian v. Kyle, then Marc v. Stu.
3) Each player has a set of six players names on a piece of paper; to vote, the name selected is placed into a hat, the votes are tallied and we move onto the matchup.
4) A giant board records point totals after each round

Suggestions for additional rules:

-Year requirement: With ten rounds, each player will be playing 10 songs total. Do we want to require that they play 5 songs from each year? So if I've played all my 1967 tracks by round 6, I have to then play 1992 songs the rest of the way through? Think this would be easy to keep track of. If we don't want to limit someone to playing both years equally, a requirement that each player play at least 4 songs from a decade seems like a reasonable compromise.
-Song Length: You may exceed the 5 minute length no more than twice in the contest. All songs will be cut off after 8 minutes. Players have the option of fast forwarding in order to highlight a section of the long song if they wish.
-Tie-breaker at the end of the rounds: If two or more players are tied in points at the end of 10 rounds, a sudden death final round occurs where each surviving player plays one song (chosen by a random selection) and we vote on the best played. The tied players do not get a vote in this round (that way, if an odd number are tied, we have a chance of quickly determining a winner).

Not sure if this is what you had in mind. Welcome your clarifications.

I'm also concerned about the 5 minute limit. At this point, I've narrowed my list down to 68 songs. Of these, 11 are more than 5 minutes long, 6 are more than 6 minutes long and only 3 are longer than 7 minutes. The longest is 22 minutes, and I really can't expect to play it, despite the fact that it is a very strong candidate. I've been working on ranking them so that I can be ready when the time comes to either throw down the gauntlet or pick it up and thump somebody with it, and if I pick the top 10 from each of my years, 5 of the top 20 are over 5 minutes long. Only 2 of them are more than 6 minutes long. I'd be more comfortable with 6 minutes as a limit, and I agree that we should be able to play longer songs and truncate them down to 5 or 6 minutes.

Whatever the committee decides, I'll be there. Armed with some of the finest music ever created!

Mike

thoughts:
I am not worried about going 1st or 2nd on a individual " match" , I hope our mrmmories can remember the 1 song played 5 minutes earlier.....

I like the blind vote that gets tallied at the end so that if I am losing bad i will never know until the final count....

I do not think we should have a 5 minute limit... For me it is about quality songs and..... what the fuck ? , are we now doing commercial a.m. radio format?...( We are supposed to be getting pleasure from this remember?) lets say that you can only bring 1 really long song 10 minutes long, but anything up to 8 minutes or so should be fine.. I dont think we will have that many frankly....( I am sure there will be a bunch or 3 minute punk and early rock songs to offset the time or a few longer ones)..... for the record I dont have many if any that long so I am not biased..

so 10 sets of 6 songs each 60 songs = 5 hours....midnightish... sounds good to me

Come to think of it Brian, I am currently leaning towards a tally whereby you would be awarded anywhere from 0 to 6 points per round ...i guess i don't share the same hockey bias a you. I think it would be cool because it would give more room for the big comeback of the underdog in the last round or two ...like when you're up agaisnt the boards in the final period and you're having trouble getting the puck down the ice ...never was good at the sports analogies ...guess you got to watch 'em to pick up on the clichés!

I like it Brian; cuts down on the voting as well.

May i suggest that with respect to the time limit, we may play more long songs, but, may only play up to five minutes of them; as well as with the 1 (or 2)exceptions you mention. (note that an edit on the part of a contestant would still remain a risky proposition but one that may well prove to be a worthwhile gambit). I think that otherwise we risk arbitrarily eliminating works of great art for our mere convenience.

I like the random order idea Marc. Derek and I discussed the same thing last night. So let's consider that a "go".

D and I also thought of a wrinkle (beers at Betty's yet again) to the original proposal worth considering. We both had a concern that the "rolling vote" - i.e., after each play there's another vote - may bias towards the current song as it will be the only fresh song each time. So a possible change to mitigate this is that after we draw the order for the round, that we pair up the picks so that 1 battles 2, 3 battles 4, and 5 battles 6. A win in a round is counted as one point, and a tie as a 1/2 point (there will be six voters so ties will occur). What do you think? We aim for ten-twelve rounds.

We also discussed a maximum song length of 5:00, which each guy can exceed only once (or twice?) in the night.

As previously proposed (to a certain extent), the format would have us drawing the names from a hat each round of six songs and thus playing our selections in random order relative to the other participants. When the hat is empty all the names go back into the hat and we continue. After each song selection we vote for that song or the previously played song based on whatever criteria we feel as individuals we feel would like to apply.

The interesting thing is that you have first an opportunity to "counter" a previously played song with your own, yet every time you do, you get countered by the opponent that follows.

One of the big tasks of the evening will be tracking the selections and the voting. We need to decide if the voting will be public or by ballot of some sort. I would suggest that i can make up some tiles that are marked "C" or "P" for current or previous song. We each toss out the appropriate tile at the end of the song and someone slips the total into a spreadsheet and it tallies the vote. We can either keep the tally hidden 'till the end or show a running tally.

...other suggestions?

thanks Brian...I cant recall the format exactly but I will bring 20 songs in total 10 from each year....let me know if I have this wrong somehow...

s

I was thinking about the number of songs as well, and figure if we stay on track we could do a round in 30 minutes or so (maybe forty when Marc and Mike start into the Yes and Genesis catalogues lol) so if we get rolling at 7 (do-able?) and go to midnight that'd be 10 songs each. I'll be going to 4 am, but don't expect all of the rest of you to keep pace. Seems a lot of work for 10 songs eh? Yikes. Anyway, the other question is, what proportion of each year (of our two) do we need to feature. I was thinking a maximum of 2/3 from one year, so for every three songs that you play, only 2 can come from the same year.....something like that. I'm easy on that so let's hear from others.

And Stu in terms of your CSN question (wild guess on my part) the live track will be attached to the year of its own release, not of the original studio recording.

sorry bout that Mike...unintentional barb there....

how many songs do you guys think it will take .... I have no idea how many to bring...

I need some clarification again on live songs....what if a song is released originally in your given year but a better live version comes out later, can we play the later version even though its year is not your year?

probably not?

On the other hand I assume we can play live cover tunes by a second artist that improves upon the original studio release by the original artist, obviously the year would be the year the new cover version is released as a single...

Probably yes?

please confirm..

tks

s

Actually Stu I thought you'd always loved that Sprinfield song. I recall some years ago you warbling out a version (superbly, mind) when justifying the greatness of their relatively under-lauded third album.

In terms of losing the plot two years ago when battling the 60's, I agree. It shows what's tricky about getting votes, though. Who would think I'd give up the round because I played REM and U2? Perhaps the two greatest bands of any standing from the decade. And while an argument could be made that the songs were bad choices, one is a beloved though underground choice from their lesser-loved third record (though a fave of mine) and the second is a huge breakthrough anthem which defined the band for a number of years - ie, hardly twaddle. And Stu's choices were great great songs but all very well known. Could be interesting next week!

Actually, I'm the one who selected "On the Way Home". I was basically trying to do what Kyle described below - avoiding the more obvious and potentially overplayed tracks in favour of some tasty but lesser known gems that show off the depth of a given band. And, for the record (since Brian's list below is missing this), the James song I chose was "Seven".

On the way home? ... I cant recall why I would have chosen such a "B" song.....hummmmmm...
..Also There may have been a reason for why certain songs were played in certain orders, so winning by a slim margin early on may well have been what I intended....cant recall the exact sitch though....

But Derek, this time the voting will be fast and furious and i expect the tallies will be up and down throughout the night.

Hey Brian what I found interesting when looking back over the sheets that detailed our selections round by round 2 years ago was that you almost took out Mr. 1960's Watson from the competition entirely (well before the final round) but lost the vote by the slimmest of margins 3-2.

And looking at your picks for that round I know you had my vote with your first two choices Billy Bragg and New Order but for the first time that night you wavered playing REM's "Driver 8" and U2s "Sunday Bloody Sunday". I'm not sure how the vote was split between 60s and 80s (hell I can't remember who I ultimately voted for) but Stu was ripe for the takedown and you let him off the hook with those last 2 songs in my humble opinion.

I think I'll miss the edginess of the elimination factor this time around and the chance to play a bunch of songs in a row.

The trick with '67 will not, of course, be slim pickings but fatigue with some of the more popular and immortal tracks and a disinterest in under appreciated or lesser heard tracks. But I suppose that's a challenge we all face, to some extent.

Thanks Derek, couple of updates attached.

1960s

Donovan - Wear Your Love Like Heaven
Jefferson Airplane - Somebody to Love
The Band - The Weight
The Rolling Stones - Gimme Shelter
Procol Harum - A Whiter Shade of Pale
The Who - I Can See for Miles
Love - Alone Again Or
The Beatles - While My Guitar Gently Weeps
Antonio Carlos Jobim - The Girl from Ipanema
Crosby, Stills & Nash - Wooden Ships
The Byrds - Eight Miles High
Neil Diamond - Sweet Caroline
Jimi Hendrix - All Along the Watchtower
Buffalo Springfield - On The Way Home
The Moody Blues - Nights in White Satin
The Rolling Stones - You Can't Always Get What You Want
Bob Dylan - Like a Rolling Stone
The Beatles - A Day in the Life

1970s

Bobby Womack - Across 110th Street
Led Zeppelin - Over the Hills and Far Away
Elvis Costello - I Don't Want to go to Chelsea
The Clash - White Man in Hammersmith Palais
The Kinks - Lola
Pink Floyd - Fearless
David Bowie - Life on Mars
Lou Reed - Perfect Day
Iggy Pop - The Passenger
The Jam - Down in the Tube Station at Midnight
Blondie - Heart of Glass
ELO - Livin Thing
Van Morrison - Into the Mystic
Nick Drake - Northern Sky
Neil Young - Old Man
The Sex Pistols - Anarchy in the Uk
John Lennon - Instant Karma

1980s

The Church - Under the Milky Way
The Cure - In Between Days
Bruce Springsteen - Atlantic City
The Pixies - Monkey Gone to Heaven
The Smiths - Please, Please, Please...
The Stranglers - Golden Brown
The Replacements - The Ledge
Kate Bush - Cloudbusting
The Smiths - This Charming Man
Billy Bragg - Levi Stubb's Tears
New Order - Ceremony
R.E.M. - Driver 8
U2 - Sunday Bloody Sunday
Tom Waits - Telephone Call from Istanbul
Midnight Oil - Beds are Burning
The Waterboys - A Girl Called Johnny
Prince - When Doves Cry
Icicle Works - Whisper to a Scream

1990s

Ride - Vapour Trail
The Verve - The Drugs Don't Work
Portishead - Sour Times
Belle & Sebastian - Get Me Away from Here, I'm Dying
The Posies - Dream All Day
Radiohead - Karma Police
Nirvana - Sliver
The Ghandharvas - First Day of Spring
Elliott Smith - Bled White
Built to Spill - Randy Described Eternity
Wilco - I'm Always in Love
Blur - The Universal
Flaming Lips - Superman
James - (Mike's pick from Laid?)

2000s

Soil Pimp Sessions - (track?)
M. Ward - (track?)
Arcade Fire - Antichrist Television Blues
Outkast - (track from Stankonia)
Interpol - Not Even Jail
Jolie Holland - Sascha
Getatchew - track?
Amon Tobin - track?
Stars - Your Ex-Lover is Dead

Here's the list lads. Please fill in the gaps as you recall them.

1960s

Donovan - Wear Your Love Like Heaven
Jefferson Airplane - Somebody to Love
The Band - The Weight
The Rolling Stones - Gimme Shelter
Procol Harum - A Whiter Shade of Pale
The Who - I Can See for Miles
Love - Alone Again Or
The Beatles - While My Guitar Gently Weeps
Antonio Carlos Jobim - The Girl from Ipanema
Crosby, Stills & Nash - Wooden Ships
The Byrds - Eight Miles High
Neil Diamond - Sweet Caroline
Jimi Hendrix - All Along the Watchtower
Buffalo Springfield - On The Way Home
The Moody Blues - Nights in White Satin
The Rolling Stones - You Can't Always Get What You Want
Bob Dylan - Like a Rolling Stone
The Beatles - A Day in the Life

1970s

Bobby Womack - Across 110th Street
Led Zeppelin - Over the Hills and Far Away
Elvis Costello - I Don't Want to go to Chelsea
The Clash - White Man in Hammersmith Palais
The Kinks - Lola
Pink Floyd - Fearless
David Bowie - Life on Mars
Lou Reed - Perfect Day
Iggy Pop - The Passenger
The Jam - Down in the Tube Station at Midnight
Blondie - Heart of Glass
ELO - Livin Thing
Van Morrison - Into the Mystic
Nick Drake - Northern Sky
Neil Young - Old Man
The Sex Pistols - Anarchy in the Uk
John Lennon - Instant Karma

1980s

The Church - Under the Milky Way
The Cure - In Between Days
Bruce Springsteen - (track from Nebraska)
The Pixies - Monkey Gone to Heaven
The Smiths - Please, Please, Please...
The Stranglers - Golden Brown
The Replacements - The Ledge
Kate Bush - Cloudbusting
The Smiths - This Charming Man
Billy Bragg - Levi Stubb's Tears
New Order - Ceremony
R.E.M. - Driver 8
U2 - Sunday Bloody Sunday
Tom Waits - Telephone Call from Istanbul
Midnight Oil - Beds are Burning
The Waterboys - A Girl Called Johnny
Prince - When Doves Cry
Icicle Works - Whisper to a Scream

1990s

Ride - Vapour Trail
The Verve - The Drugs Don't Work
Portishead - Sour Times
Belle & Sebastian - Get Me Away from Here, I'm Dying
The Posies - Dream All Day
Radiohead - Karma Police
Nirvana - Sliver
The Ghandharvas - First Day of Spring
Elliott Smith - (track picked by Mike)
Built to Spill - Randy Described Eternity
Wilco - I'm Always in Love
Blur - The Universal
Flaming Lips - Superman
James - (Mike's pick from Laid?)

2000s

Soil Pimp Sessions - (track?)
M. Ward - (track?)
Arcade Fire - Antichrist Television Blues
Outkast - (track from Stankonia)
Interpol - Not Even Jail
Jolie Holland - Sascha
Getatchew - track?
Amon Tobin - track?
Stars - Your Ex-Lover is Dead

Hey D, any chance can you try to post up the 2-year-ago playlists in the next day? My step-brother-in-law Gary, great bloke who manages bands in Sydney, is very keen to see our lists from last time. I'm seeing him one more time before I head back.

Kyle, did I read correctly that you're worrying about a lack of material from 1967 because Stu scooped A Day in the Life last time 'round? Let me just repeat the questions....did I read corre - OK never mind. My man you are putting my earlier gamesmanship (not) to shame!

Looking forward to looking at the list and filling in the gaps. I have concerns about 1967 and having to rule out some potential gems that Stu might have already spun. 1992 less so but it would still be worth looking at.

Just to confirm, we're still allocated as follows:

Brian - 1978 and 2005
Derek - 1979 and 2004
Stu - 1969 and 1994
Marc - 1973 and 1999
Kyle - 1967 and 1992
Mike - 1972 and 1997

If you'll excuse me, I'll go back to painfully trying to determine which of Kriss Kross or Sir Mix A Lot will make the short list.

Thanks Kyle (whose last name name rhymes with what a leaky faucet does) for the re-fresher on the Jango ...gave it a spin and came across a Norwegian band called Flunk ...fit my mood to a T today, particularly like a track called Blind My Mind ...breathy and sensuous, sweeeeet! it put me in a head space to imagine someday possibly tackling 1999 ...did i mention 1999 sucks!

I have a fairly complete list of all the songs that were played 2 years ago. It gets harder to read my scrawl as the evening wears on but I will post it later today and you can fill in the blanks (ie song title) as you recall them.

Ok.....please I get it.....I will not play anything from 1969 that I played before..... Geeze Louise....
In fact, since you all hate me before we even start this game, I have decided to play only Neil Diamond songs from 1994.......(I will still beat Derek.....)

re release dates: I think the simple rule is the original release date of the song itself is what counts ..if the single came first like in the 60's or 70's then that is the year... if the single came after its album release then its the album release date...and I guess we have to pick North American release date as the sensible option as we are North Americans....

( Does anyone have the list of what we played at marcs at the decades battle as I only recall some of what I played.. Can you recall if we posted it to metabeats , if so i will look back and try to find it)

Since you are all getting anal about release dates ...release dates where? ...North America? Canada? First world wide release? some albums where not released in North America for months or a year after the release in a foreign market. Is there wiggle room here? Knowing you guys i imagine NOT!

And with regard to release dates on singles, i think that some exceptions must be made as there where lots of songs that where released as singles or b sides and only found their way onto records or comps later in life. We would be agreed that the single as a pre-album-release teaser is out though.

Did I? Darn it. Though doing these things on your blackberry is so primitive I'm not surprised. I'm selling all of my remaining RIM shares (if only I could do that on my blackberry). re Derek's additional thought, agreed it's something of a fallacy in some cases to choose release date, but we have to draw the line somewhere. Not to scoop Derek's play list at all, but London Calling was released in December 1979 and so all of us were blown away by those songs in 1980 and thereafter (it really was the first record of the 80's in many ways), but for the sake of the comp, it;s 1979 all the way.

Posting on the (now-defunct) Filmfest blog? Totally Stu move.

Here's Brian's post:

"I'd be OK with formally released live versions, but I don't see a re-mix (unless it's truly different) or a remaster as creating a new song and therefore for these I'd say no. Agreed on comp's, it's the original release that matters."

Good to know. Am also fine w/ not playing a track that was played at the last one of these, even though it means bidding adieu to 'A Day in the Life' and possibly other hot tracks from '67. Hoping I still have enough to wup ass with.

I think the only thing I would add to Brian's comments which for some reason he has posted in the film festival blog is that we agreed to go by the year of an album's release. So in my case several singles were released by M.I.A in 2004 that subsequently showed up on her 2005 album release "Arular". As I have 2004 as one of my years I would not be allowed to play the songs released as singles in 2004.

Agree with Brian on compilations. As in 1979 which saw the release of the Who's "Quadrophenia" and also "The Kids Are Alright". Once again I would not be permitted to spin the tracks from either of these records.

Does anyone have an issue with us not being permitted to play any of the tracks that were played at edition #1 of this contest back in 2010. I don't want to hear Stuart play the same dozen tracks he played 2 years ago.

Since I missed the drunken luncheon at which the rules of this contest were finalized, I have a question about the qualification of songs for a given year. Using the assumptive close that I learned in a sales course many years ago, I'm going to phrase my question as a statement:

Presumably, songs re-released on compilation albums do not qualify for inclusion in the year of the compilation's release, but alternative versions of previously released songs (remixes, remakes, live versions, mashups, etc) are valid.

Also, am presently listening to Jango.com, a site I had mentioned last year, which is a Canadian-friendly version of Pandora. My M83 station is serving up some nice downtempo electronica to get me through some of the paperwork sitting on my desk this afternoon. Recommend you give it a whirl, esp if your last name rhymes with Ban Binkel.

Seems we're on now for the 20th, given mr. gaines' willingness to hit the highway early and brave gta reverse commute traffic on a friday evening. The 20th. Friday. The. 20th. Nobody make a hair, nails, or waxing appointment for that evening.

Also, your guide to 2012's coolest Canadian bands.

Ugh to date problems! Stu you have to make this one a priority! Mike, failing Stu being Being able to shuffle, is there any chance of you coming down early-ish on the Friday?

In terms of locale, yes it's chez me, and I'll have a nice new turntable in place for anyone crazy enough to bring vinyl. And genre is wide open.

Mike, Marc...genre thing is gone, as you suspected. Feel free to veer wildly from free jazz to fusion to klesmer. Stu, say it ain't so on the date? Can you participate via remote/blackberry? We can play your suggestion and then vote....We do have the technology.

. I had us down for the 20th and the 21st got booked up for me early in december unfortunately...well before the 23rd email. I checked this morning for a confirmation in November on metabeats and could not spot one but I may well have missed it....certainly dont change the date for me, since the 21st works for all of you.... no worries.......it will not be the last of these sort of events i am sure.....
....

Mind Games Derek? ...1973! John's finest work of his career!

update Mike ...genre thing got ditched on the 23rd ...guess you missed the news flash ...anyone else correct me if i am wrong.

I'm happy with my years - there are a lot of good albums from '72, and '97 was also a pretty great year. But I thought that the idea was to focus on a single genre, and that is going to be difficult. I think that the decision to limit ourselves to 2 specific years has placed the focus squarely on timeframe and relegated genre to a distant back seat. Indeed, reading the posts below, all of the discussion is about the year - nobody is mentioning genre at all. Perhaps that we change if we were all required to declare a genre in advance, just as we have identified the years.

I fear we will all end up picking very broad definitions for our genre (i.e. "rock" or "dance") by neccessity, given the dual year constraint. And genre will not be the focus of our battles. Anybody else having similar thoughts?

Brian's I believe? ...as V and the kids will be away?

This time around Brian is hosting and if you read the e-mail sent out from Bettys on December 23rd we are meeting on January 21st. The Saturday. I hate when Stuart uses big words. Let the mind games begin.

Don't think any of us is here falls into this trap, but it certainly brings to mind conversations I have with my boomer relatives or even gen-x acquaintances who stopped listening to music when they stopped going to school.

What, we were going to re-pick because people weren't happy with their selections? Pshaw. And now we're mocking selections from the 60s and 90s in a game of pre-tourney expectations management? Double pshaw.
Stu-man, I love it when you intimate. It just feels so intimate. At present, I'm fine with either the 20th or 21st. We doing this at Marc's again or elsewhere?

I thought we booked it in for the 21st back in November! I am open for the change if that is necessary.

Brian, I like the fact that some of us are having to dig a little deeper ...as was always my want. I think that our having to dig will change the dynamics of our voting and might be pitting obvious vs. obscure in an interest relationship.

Kyle, diggin' the Grooveshark mix ...have not recognized a single tune as of yet, (that's good) ...like the cover of The Suburbs by Mr Little Jeans ...I think that might be the first AF cover i heard to date ...goes to show that a good song can easily have legs with another artist.

not to complicate things but i dont think a final date was chosen for the showdown... i had intimated friday night 20th is bertter for me and still is... i ahve the saturday booked... is the friday still the night?
s

Marc, Funny thing, in that I sent an email to Derek last night decrying my choice of 1978 - apparently many of the songs / artists I was thinking of are from 1979 - and suggesting a trade. Dman replied saying he had the same thought, but about 1980. Ha. So it would seem that nobody is happy, unless of course you took the uber-safe choice of a 60's / 90's combo. Booooooo. But rather than create utter chaos by suggesting we re-draft, I'm of the mind that we soldier on and find the nuggets in these years. I've spent a night (post-denial of my choice) focusing on 78 and think I have a fair bit to work with now. And I can't help but think that the votes may be harder to come by for those who opted for the safe choice this time round :). A Day in the Life will get a backlash-thumbs-down, who knows? And anything off of Let if Bleed will likely be boo'ed out of the room. Game on!

Oz is 26 degrees and a perfect mix of beach and tropical rain forest in northern New South Wales.

It's not your fault, Marc. I seem to recall that someone put a gun to your head and made you pick 1973 so...wait a minute...you chose that of your own volition. Fool!

2011 still rocks, though. A nice playlist I found on grooveshark today.

1973 sucks! ...and why is there an "L" on my forehead?

Itunes and classical music: is it getting better?

Happy New Year!

To celebrate, a nice New Order cover by Destroyer:

ok 2011 best of :

( liked best in no partticular order))
Bon Ivor: Bon Ivor
PJ Harvey: Let England Shake
Josh T Pearson: last of the country gentleman

(Liked next best in no particular order)

Within and Without: Washed Out
Beirut: The rip tide
Antlers: Burts Apart
Danger Mouse / Luppi: Rome
Kurt Vile: Smoke Rings for my halo
Kate Bush: 50 Words for snow
Decemberists : King Is Dead

best reissue by far for me : Mickey Newbury: American Trilogy...check this one out....

My favourite new releases from 2011, in order of preference, are:

The Decemberists: The King is Dead

Over the Rhine: The Long Surrender

The Rosebuds: Loud Planes Fly Low

Paul Simon: So Beautiful or So What

Radiohead: The King of Limbs

The only other 2011 albums that I own are Blessed by Lucinda Williams, which I really didn't like, and Like a Man by Adam Cohen, which I bought for my wife. That one's OK, but I'm not ready to put it on a list of favourites.

The truth is that I haven't actually heard a lot of the albums that the rest of you are citing. I haven't signed up for rdio because I rarely find time to sit and listen to music at the computer. Most of my listening is done while driving. I've recently re-subscribed to Paste with their new mplayer format - it offers weekly issues with half a dozen or so downloadable tracks for $2.99 per month. I'm hoping that'll help me catch up!

Top Ten PopRock: I've been stewing over this for a while, moving bands and albums off and on. Silliness really. So, some that I enjoyed this year were:

Maritime - Human Hearts
Veronica Falls
The War on Drugs - Slave Ambient
Fleet Foxes - Helplessness Blues (likely my favourite album, liked it a lot more than their debut for some reason)
Real Estate - Days
Anika
Yuck
Yellow Ostrich (Whale is one of my favourite songs)
The Feelies - Here Before
Hello Echo - Hello

Honourable Mentions to Widowspeak overcoming their their Mazzy-Star like derivativeness with great songs, Cymbals Eat Guitars for a strong follow up record, Malkmus's latest for sounding good again (and not sounding like Cymbals Eat Guitars), the Wire for making great music in their fifties, Sloan for the lifetime achievement award after 20 years (and Double Cross is very good) , and Iceage for rocking out with vim and vigour. Others that D and K have mentioned I also like - Lykke Li e.g.,

I'll throw a few jazz albums up later.

Taking a precious moment out of my extremely busy day here are my choices for my favourite (ie most listened to) records of 2011 in no particular order:

Mirrors - Lights and Offerings
Destroyer - Kaputt
Austra - Feel it Break
EMA - Past Life Martyred Saints
Thurston Moore - Demolished Thoughts
PJ Harvey - Let England Shake
Charles Lloyd - Mirror
Eleanor Friedberger - Last Summer
Laura Marling - A Creature I Don't Know
Lykke Li - Wounded Rhymes

There done my bit.

More year end polls, this time w/ respect to film. Trying to follow the train of thought around the selection and ranking will likely do your head in but I thought you'd appreciate the list of films you missed this year and might want to rent/stream/buy me for Christmas.

Also, thank you all for taking the time out of your busy day to post your own favourite music from 2011. I've really enjoyed reading through them. You're all awesome. Truly.

Also, latest GBV, streaming at NPR.

(Btw, I loved the ad for the Complete Collection of Tony Bennett that precedes the live stream, particularly the number of cds in the collection. You gotta really love Tony.)

The tagline for Metabeats now reads 'Musings about music or whatever amuses'. As such, book recommendations are allowed. Also, Sarah quite liked The Sisters Brothers as well, so I'm not convinced gender should be a barrier to enjoyment. Just started it myself last night but only a few pages in so can't really comment further yet.

Apologies to all if a book related post seems out of place here but I wanted to reiterate my my belief that The Sisters Brothers is the best novel of 2011. It's not likely a book any of the women are going to want to read so this seemed as good a place as any to recommend it. If you don't trust my instincts you can read here.

I think it was Derek who pointed out the lack of consensus among critics this year as to the best or most accomplished releases of 2011. Here's a nice summary of those scores across publications/blogs that really underscore that observation. Apart from Polly J and Justin V, not even much commonality in the top 10s.

Kyliep's 2011, for what it's worth (and in no particular order)

albums
Several Shades of Why J Mascis
Let England Shake P J Harvey
Within and Without Washed Out
Fading Parade Papercuts
Yuck Yuck
Civilian Wye Oak
C'mon Low
Hurry Up We're Dreaming M83
Looping State of Mind The Field
The Harrow & The Harvest Gillian Welch

honourable mentions: Wounded Rhymes Lykke Li, Burst Apart The Antlers, Days Real Estate, In Love With Oblivion Crystal Stilts, Bon Iver Bon Iver (growing on me, Stu), No Time for Dreaming Charles Bradley, Art Deco Smiles Bela

songs

"Ritual Union" Little Dragon



"Need You Now" Cut Copy



"Midnight City" M83


"Rolling in the Deep" Adele


"Belong" The Pains of Being Pure at Heart


"Amor Fati" Washed Out



"The Altar" Wye Oak



"Piste 1" Galaxie



honourable mentions:
"Second Song" TV on the Radio, "Whale" Yellow Ostrich, "Video Games" Lana Del Rey

If anything, the usual year-end lists are at least prompting a revisit to some of the releases I previously had neglected or forgotten about entirely. My Morning Jacket released an album this year? Was surprised to read that. Even more surprised when I searched my library in Itunes this morning and discovered that I actually own it.

The good news: Magnetic Fields coming. The bad: Sound Academy, though. Sigh.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

Okay, I decided to start from track 4 onwards this morning on the Austra disc and it's working better for me. The vocal style and more polished production on the front-loaded tracks are what were causing me some problems.

Tuneyards (mixed case, but not in the jumbled mix anyone writing about them is supposed to either remember or look up) do suck. Or at least, they never get past the 'kind of fucking annoying' stage for me. I have read tons of good things about Austra but haven't made it past the first few songs, which sounded alarmingly close to Evanesence, at least on first listen. Will revisit, though.

One I'm enjoying right now, and was featured on the Guardian list I linked to a couple of weeks ago, is Jonathan Wilson's 'Gentle Spirit'. Info on him here and streaming at Rdio.

Looked at the Stereogum list and have a few questions and comments.

1. Do you know anyone who likes TUNEYARDS? (block caps on purpose)
2. Cold Cave is crap. It's the kinda crap I usually like but it's still crap.
3. I'm likely never going to listen to Drake or any Fucked Up record (well at least until they get a guy who can actually sing)
4. Has any one of you listened to a Ryan Adams record in the last 10 years?
5. If I'm being honest Austra's "Feel It Break" is my fave album of 2011.

2011 Listing....
Stereogum
No real surprises.
After re-listening to a few albums over the weekend, should have my list together online tomorrow, hopefully ahead of some other end of year lists.

I could go on and on about how much I loved the Wye Oak/Neko Case/The National show last night at the ACC. How I'm consisently amazed at how such a rich, expansive sound can come out of such a tiny framed Neko. How the National's live performance exceeded anything I've enjoyed on record. How it was almost guilding the lily to have a second opening act in the form of Wye Oak, a band whose latest album is hitting the very top of some year end Best Of lists.

But you knew I'd gush about these anyway. More interesting was how each act handled the venue itself which, to be honest, almost put me off going in the first place. I hadn't attended a stadium/arena concert since the 1990s (U2, The Tragically Hip) and wasn't all that keen on on watching stick figures battle with an acoustically hostile environment for three plus hours.

Credit to the ACC, which seems to have figured out how to make the space sound-friendly, halving the available seating and creating a semi-circle of seating around one of the goal ends.

Wye Oak, whom we'd all seen last year at the Horseshoe, actually benefited from the larger space, where the band's frequent, sudden quiet-loud-distortion transitions can ripple out like a wave into the bigger space. The only drawback was that, taking the stage around 7:00pm (or just before then, we arrived around 10 minutes past), they played to only a few hundred people at best.

Of the three, Neko was the most uneasy in the space. She made several jokes about being in a hockey arena that came across as slightly nervous or maybe resigned to the absurdity of being there. When she lamented that the sad ballad she was about to launch seemed ill suited to a place that's usually filled with joy and celebration, the ensuing audience laughter was likely less an agreement with her assessment but a collective howl at the absurdity of the notion that a space whose tenants include the Leafs and Raptors could be incongruous with lamentation. Still, the strength of her vocals and set carried her through her approximately 1.5 hour set.

Even The National initially seemed to have trouble connecting with the audience, at least for the first third of the show. Their performances were great--polished but with a more dynamic urgency than one might expect from the often laidback vocal delivery one hears on the album--and the audience seemed appreciative, but there was an almost unspoken tension or distance between the performers and audience. As if sensing this, though, the lead singer completely took the entire dynamic into his hands, or rather, to his feet, by venturing into the aisles and inviting the audience down to the area in front of the stage. He'd return later during the encore to walk through half the lower seating area, while handlers scrambled to keep track of a microphone wire, its sheer length almost impossibly long or perhaps designed specifically for the occasion. From that point on, the whole mood of the place transformed from reserved appreciation to full on, rousing glee. It was amazing to witness.

Needless to say, no such reservations about future shows, especially if they feature this type of line up. Oh, and I liked it.

Kyle, lol.

Hey anybody out there listening to the remastered Some Girls? it was such a record for me as a kid, and the new maters sound sound mighty crisp. Nice. The second record of unreleased material has some quality songs on it as well, though in most cases it's obvious why the songs were excluded from the record......good insight into how to piece together something cohesive sounding from a process that at one stage must have felt pretty disparate, based on the longer list of 20 tracks. I've renewed my 30-year old fascination with some of those songs (hello Before they make me run) and the sound of the band overall.

Oooh! Oooh! Stomach pumped. Definitely. Wait, that was just an example. Right.

My suggestion for going forward: We dispense with the music entirely and pit potential contest formats against one another in a double-knockout elimination tournament. The winning format will not necessarily result in its adoption in an actual contest but will certainly earn the winner bragging rights that they can lord over the rest of the group until the next contest is proposed. The winner must bear in mind, however, that any acknowledgement of victory will be reluctant, begrudging, and qualified with the shared understanding amongst the losers that an unfair advantage, likely inherent in the format structure itself, was the primary reason for the win, not any skill, effort, or inspiration on the part of the victor.

Also, how many words are there for rain? Seems more suited to this December than any discussion of snow. Perhaps we need to consult someone in Vancouver.

Food for thought. I like Stuart's idea about the "completely open playlist" as Brian puts it, but, agree with Brian that we need to push it further. I think the completely open playlist makes some kind of great spontaneous casual game to accompany copious amounts of alcohol...that is if anyone can keep score.

I like the idea of exploring new territory but also like the idea of a fair game. How about we choose a series of sub-genres, say six for example (or focus more on fewer) , or a grouping of music that has some sort of significance, say a music "scene" or era or whatever. We then all dig around a little in all the genres spin the music off and score the tracks a la Dr D's description.

I find that the notion of pitting a track from one genre against one from other a little unfair because it becomes like saying which do you like more, wine or steak? Apples or butterflies? Oranges or a drive in the country? Having a tooth drilled or your stomach pumped?

To make things more complicated (or more significant) it might be nice to link the genres in some meaningful way. Say take five different genres that where all thriving over a five year period ...Or five genres that flowed from a single scene or city, say New York, the Northwest, Manchester, or Route 61 ...come to think of it that would be wicked; music's journey up the Mississippi. Might be a long evening but we could travel it's length from south to north. As well whoever is hosting will need to have the event catered with courses that follow the musical trek.

But seriously, I like the idea of Route 61, we could even keep the format "open" beyond limiting it to "Route 61" so that the evening has a nice flow to it. Something we might want to do is also allow tracks that were not actually produced within the focused "genre" or whatever we call it. Someone for example, might make an argument for the greatness of a track that was the first to introduce a significant sound of the blues to a whole new audience, as one could for Steve Ray Vaughn perhaps as he was from Texas and not from "Route 61" ....don't agree with the fit and significance of a track, you vote me down in part for bending the genre too much!

Derek, with all due respect (of which i have come to realise there is little around here) set me straight on something. The other night over beers you claimed to not be a fan of lyrics and exclaimed "who listens to lyrics?". That being the case how can you possibly like the new Kate Bush album in which the lyrics are so front and center; I call bullshit! Are the words just notes to you? Do you not hear the words? Do you not take meaning from them? If that is the case, that you do not take meaning from the words and have not thought about "50 Words For Snow" how can you disagree with me about my the offense to the song?

Ok Let's nail 'er down on the 23rd. There is evidence to suggest that this group has a high percentage of leaders, low percentage of followers. Ha. This is why I wrote a screenplay about you dudes.

Stu, unlike Stella and Amy and Dolores and Candy I'm not a
big fan of the completely open play lists....I like pushing us to go deep in an era or a genre, to find (to some degree anyway) some new and unexpected music.. Wide open will mostly mean playing our existing favourite music, and we've all been at this too long. The decades night was (mostly) a blast because it was different.

Also...a great question, whose answer is probably: because radio listeners either like or will tolerate whatever shit you feed them.

Not sure what's more impressive about your post, Mike: that it suggests you understand all the arcane rules and nuances that have been proposed thus far and are suggesting further improvements or the fact that you published it at 1:00 AM. Well done.

Again, think an all-options on the table, sitting at betty's with some pints in front of us, perhaps conferencing in mr. gaines for his input should he not want to make the 4 hour+ trek from the greater Ottawa area to join us in person, to finalize. propose this happen on december 23rd lunch or possibly sooner, schedules permitting.

In the meantime, and since we're in December and the throes of the season, a contemplation of the Worst Christmas Music. Much loved Band Aid does not fare so well but my favourite dig of the lot is,

"But for me, the nadir of Christmas music is the soulless keyboard-driven holiday cheer of Mannheim Steamroller. It sounds like the sort of music an Orwellian totalitarian state would pump into the air to help citizens dutifully celebrate the season. It baffles me that millions have embraced it by choice."

Amen.

The problem I have with the introduction of selected years (the undisputed cleverness of the 25 year rule notwithstanding) is that we would only be able to cover 12 years between us. That includes less than a quarter of the music produced between 1960 and 2011. If we want to avoid getting dragged back to the summer of love over and over again, why not stipulate that none of us can play 2 songs from the same decade until we've played at least one song from 4 other decades.

I do like the idea of selecting our own sub-genre, and I like the idea of frequent voting - many small setbacks rather than one crushing defeat (from a glass-is-half-empty perspective). And perhaps there should be some kind of bonus if everybody agrees that your song selection does indeed belong in the proffered genre. Or perhaps a penalty if the majority disagrees with the categorization. I see lots of potential for genre wrangling here.

Think this will need to be decided at lunch at Betty's on the 23rd.

Also, the Guardian's 50-11th best albums of 2011.

I got lost somewhere between the 14th and 15th clause.... the 25 years rule seems arbitrary to me...I prefer rules easily understood when under the influence..in short , no rules...I agree we dont want all our music from 1965 to 95 ....and in short we all want to be the winner of this contest, (OK maybe Derek wants to be the winner more then most of us) ...
so why dont we allow anything any year any genre... In short , we use Marcs system for the basic format:

6 participants – names in a hat at the beginning of each so-called round. Names are drawn at random and that person (let’s say Stuart) is required to play 1 song. The next name drawn (let’s say Brian) is also required to play 1 song. The 4 non-participants then vote on the song that strikes them as being superior. Another name is then drawn from the hat (let’s say Kyle) and he has to play a song that then is pitted against the song last played (ie the song previously played by Brian) and another vote takes place.

but after this no rules....

Each person comes armed with their favorite tunes form any genre any year..... The beauty will be to wacth Brian beat Kyles uber death metal song with a track by the Egolilies... In short you hear the challengers song and then you can try to beat it with any song from any decade or genre.....damn simple....and the art is listening to the opening tracik and thinking about what type of song is best to beat it , there on the spot...

you can coin toss to decide who plays first vs who challenges....no one can complain they were stuck with a crappy year or genre

s

I think we should have a random draw for the order of selection for everyone's 1st choice and then go in reverse order for the 2nd pick.

My vote is for #2 and the years, with the clever 25 year proviso that Derek has come up with, over #1, with the sub-genres. I like playing one song after another. More voting. Each song is potentially worth more. Only questions: How do we pick the year (s)? What if two people want the same year? If it's first come, first serve, can I take 1967 and 1992? :)

I’m having a hard time taking that “not taking northern culture seriously” line seriously. Philistines aside for the moment however as we should really kick into gear this upcoming music contest.

First the format. Marc has suggested, and others that I’ve mentioned it to seem to concur, that we should scrap the format of the last clash. Instead of having 3-song round robins where someone might not play a song for an hour or more and could also be eliminated from the contest before the night is half done we go with the following:

6 participants – names in a hat at the beginning of each so-called round. Names are drawn at random and that person (let’s say Stuart) is required to play 1 song. The next name drawn (let’s say Brian) is also required to play 1 song. The 4 non-participants then vote on the song that strikes them as being superior. Another name is then drawn from the hat (let’s say Kyle) and he has to play a song that then is pitted against the song last played (ie the song previously played by Brian) and another vote takes place.

And on it goes. Voting is thus taking place approx every 5 minutes so you need to be paying attention. Ties can occur with only 4 votes cast. That will result in a half point for each competitor as opposed to a full point for an outright win. At the end of the night total point tally wins the contest. This keeps everyone engaged and on their toes.

This was Marc’s idea so if I have misinterpreted your suggestion please chime in.

As for the content of the contest that is proving much more elusive. After another discussion with Brian last night let me throw out two ideas:

1) We stick with the sub-genre format (letting people select their own) perhaps from an approved list like Wikipedia’s which seems fairly exhaustive. It was suggested that each person have two sub-genres at their disposal and have to play a balance of songs from each of their selected categories.

2) Each person picks a particular year lets say 1976 and has to pick a second year but one has to be at least 25 years removed from the one first selected. So if you love 1976 you’re going to have to go back to 1951 or prior if working backwards or 2001 or later if working the other way. As with suggestion #1 a balance of songs from each year would be required.

Suggestion #2 arose as a result of my fear that with the sub-genre format we would once again be listening to the bulk of music coming from the 1965 to early 1990s period. Music in more recent times doesn’t seem to be categorized the way it used to be and I threw out some names (Sigur Ros, Beck, TV on the Radio) and wondered how these artists would be categorized under format #1.

Enough from me. Need to hear from everyone else so we can finalize this thing well before Christmas so I can spend the holidays ignoring friends and family and keeping my head firmly stuck up my musical ass.