ALL MUSIC GUIDE - What's the deal?

Well, one tries. ;-) This subject has come up before on the boards, as you can see here. (Searching the archives, it's your friend!) The key thing to keep in mind is simply this -- the AMG is at base a work in progress, not a fixed text. It is always going to need updating, revision and improvement. If you find a mistake, report it! Just remember the reviewers' opinions are their own. ;-)

Like I said, this is not a small resource, it's one that OTHER sites (including DISTROS) use as a reference - if you really wanna push the issue, they've *cost* me money: some folks will NEVER buy a record with the review we got, which is the one that Insound, Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Tower, etc used on their site, and I can't say I blame them. All the good press in the world will not erase someone calling us "trip hop" once. It's tanatmount to slander, if you ask me.

But that's a personal gripe - the more universal war-whoop comes from having to fact-check alleged facts. So what if no one else is doing what AMG does? I'd rather no one do it than have AMG continue spreading misinformation and re-writing history.

Shut 'em down.

As for saying a genre name is tantamount to slander -- hell, in that case, most bands everywhere should be suing most reviewers. ;-)

Gonna check that archive right now...

AMG the game

Oh, It's not THAT bad! It's a very useful resource. Problem is, you do have to fact-check the facts. But hell... you know what they say about the internet. It's... um... inaccurate.

Somebody needs to invent a catchy colloquial saying to encompass that idea.

That said, if anyone wants to hire me to rewrite the Shirley Collins info and reviews, I'm game.

I think Sterling has found a pre-existing colloquialism that works great.

Coem to think of it, maybe they pay well - Ned, do you have to live in Michigan to write for them? I'm ALWAYS looking for work...

that, and their constant flagging/recommending of the Blow Monkeys, which must be some AMG staffer's idea of a running joke.

What bothers me most is the received wisdom masquerading as criticism in many of the (mostly older) reviews, the weird seesawing between contradictory clichés that characterizes the writing of certain reviewers.

I was trying to do Allman Brothers research tonight and that whole functionality has just disappeared!!

Don't trust the reviews completely but they're a useful hint.

Also it is genuinely useful.

If you make a misatke in a review or whatever because you rely on them then it's partly, mostly even, your own fault. You should cross check facts.

Mr. Diamond: I'm positive that feature will return.

At the risk of breaking the spell, we do happen to use Out of the Cellar as the barometer for album ratings.

I believe most -- if not all -- of the other questions above have been addressed in archived threads.

Thanks (as always) for the kind and/or understanding words.

And what happened to their original one-and-a-half star panning of Coldplay's Parachutes? It's... GONE!!

Hey Evan, what's up. They keep changing the ratings, I guess allowing "hhistorical perspective," to influence the alterations. I remember how Pearl Jam's "Vs." had 3 stars, but now has 4. I know "Jagged Little Pill" was not 4.5 stars when it was new, for a few years. The Erhlewine review was edited to make it sound more positive, and he added one or two sentences - the original review by him was pretty damning, if I remember correctly. And he gave Tool's "Aenima" 3 stars, but they got rid of that bad review and rating, and after "Lateralus" came out, upgraded it to 5 - best of genre! So...hmm...

I'm glad they panned it though - I took the chance and bought in part because I knew any new album that would inspire AMG to give one star must, at the very least, be really interesting.

2) Multiple release dates on a single album often denote a re-release or a release on a different format or label. Sometimes this is because it's released at different times in different countries.

3) I like the fact that reviews occasionally change with a bit of perspective. Sometimes it takes a bit of time to figure out just what the place is for something in the grand scheme of things, especially if you're reviewing something brand new that has to be up on the site fairly soon after the release date, if not before. It's a dynamic site, so misinterpretations or just plain mistakes shouldn't be forced to be left in stone.

4) Andy rules, because he always makes sure that piddly little corrections are taken care of eventually.

and btw, the "shut 'em down" was a playful reference to Public Enemy's Apocalypse 91 - AMG gave it 5 stars, remember?

To be less glib, I appreciate that they give non-critically lauded artists the time of day. And I value the received wisdom from a data-collection perspective even if its disturbing from a critical one. But surely they can avoid mindless fanboy raves.

Albums i noticed they changed to the "BEST OF GENRE" rating

3rd Bass - The Cactus Album
Black Sheep - A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing
DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince - He's the DJ, I'm the Rapper
Eminem - Slim Shady LP
Eminem - The Marshall Mathers LP
Jay-Z - The Blueprint
Jungle Brothers - Straight Out the Jungle [of course, they still keep the one sentance review. heh]
Missy Elliot - Supa Dupa Fly
Nas - Illmatic
Snoop Dogg - Doggystyle
TLC - Crazysexycool

aren't they going a wee bit overboard...?

I don't understand this complaining. Someone started up what has become the best collection of information there is about music. It is growing and developing, and there are errors, and unfortunately the way the database is structured or the screens work or something is flawed, and the reviews are by individuals so some of them are ill-informed or poorly written. It's clearly far from perfect - but on the other hand it's the best music resource there is, and it keeps getting better.

i mean, of course it's not perfect but dude, i can smell yr soup grapes from here.

I really want every windham hill fan out there to listen to Neubaten; I think it would improve the world.

i mean, er, yeah

actually, if i'm pissed about it (bummed is probably a better descrpition), it's for good reason. And I'm sure there are other bands out there who are too. But obviously, it's something you can't get upset about it until it affects you directly - and at some point - whether it's a magazine editor telling you you've spelled an album title wrong, or you just bought a Dead C album expecting opera (or vise versa) - it will.

But let's hope you're all lucky enough to avoid the "oversights" of a website that will affect YOUR livelihood(s).

I understood that ratings are relative to the artist's body of work, so a 5-star Ratt record is not "unbelievably classic" as compared to all music, or even necessarily within their genre, just an indication that it's the pick of the Ratt litter as far as AMG is concerned.

(I guess "Best of Genre" ratings are another thing, but still.)

Pardon if I'm wrong or treading well-traveled territory here.

/sweeping melodrama

My understanding is that 5 stars is a rating that can be compared to all records from anyone ever; if you get 5 stars, you're getting it for the ages, not just for your catalogue, if you get me. Actually, same with the lowest rating (one-star, I think?) We're not supposed to be handing them out willy-nilly. I actually handed out one 5-star rating once and it got demoted by the big brass.

If you ever hear Chrome's Live in Europe, you will eat those words.

My problem with AMG is that it's wildly inconsistent in its rating system, mainly because several different people review different CDs from the same artist.

Sometimes a very good thing (but what do I know, I own the Depeche Mode section completely, almost).

http://www.hiponline.com/artist/music/g/gonzales/gonzales.jpg

with

http://galileo.spaceports.com/~drawing/ali-g.jpg

(the former's real name is listed on AMG as "Sacha Baron Cohen", creator of the latter...)

By the way, for what it's worth, I think you TOTALLY ripped I Roy on that face off, bro

Spellcheck never hurts, either.

We add several thousand reviews and bios on a monthly basis. Many of these come from off-site freelancers. Our editorial staff is not great in number. Again, the database is a work in progress.