67.
I shoulda stuck this in there, somewhere:
― Michael Daddino, Saturday, 25 August 2012 20:41 (8 months ago) Permalink
― i know your nuts hurt! who's laughing? (contenderizer), Saturday, 25 August 2012 20:46 (8 months ago) Permalink
did pitchfork weigh the #1's and the #100's all the same or differently? just wondering
― billstevejim, Monday, 27 August 2012 04:06 (8 months ago) Permalink
differently? like one person's #1 would count for more than someone else's? how would that even work?
― some dude, Monday, 27 August 2012 04:10 (8 months ago) Permalink
michael, that is a serious fucking list.
― choom gangnam style (get bent), Monday, 27 August 2012 04:12 (8 months ago) Permalink
no i mean like, when they tallied up the submissions, did the people's #1's count more than their #2's and so on? or did the placements not matter? so like if someone had OK Computer at #1 it would count just as much as someone who had the same record at #99..
― billstevejim, Tuesday, 28 August 2012 17:34 (8 months ago) Permalink
Yeah, I'm pretty sure they did - number 1 gets 100 points, 2 99, etc etc etc.
― Sick Mouthy (Scik Mouthy), Tuesday, 28 August 2012 17:37 (8 months ago) Permalink
if only that question had been adressed in the info
― young money color me badd (J0rdan S.), Tuesday, 28 August 2012 18:16 (8 months ago) Permalink
kind of curious what other lists i&others wld have devised if this had been framed differently: 'top 100 albums 96-11 selected after you've gone for a run /when yr watching Transformers 3/when yr v cold and need the toilet'
my week of listening to 100% women (mb 98% in practice) has been pretty banging though! v pleased to discover lena platonos
― ogmor, Tuesday, 28 August 2012 22:41 (8 months ago) Permalink