The title of this post is a slight bit baiting, but, seriously, what makes- especially online writers- worthy or unworthy of being labeled a critic, rather than, say, a fan? In one of the many year-end list threads on ILM this idea was brought up by DJ Martian and others. The link to the Fast 'n Bulbous "rant" here was put up as an idea of the ridiculousness of some of the so-called cultural barometers that write for magazines being able to do so if they vote for things like Ryan Adams, when there are obviously things in the genre that are qualitatively better and SHOULD have been heard by these people. To take the edge out of this criticism of others, and as an experiment for myself, I've taken up the gauntlet and started a blog where I catalog everything that I listen to that is being released in 2004 here. But back to the original question at hand. How many albums does it take to be an authority on the year's releases? 100? 500? 1000?