AMG would be better without the reviews. I like Steve Erlewine, but AMG's reviews have always been spotty. I'd rather it be a clearinghouse of information that Rolling Stone Lite or Pitchfork Junior.

i guess i would disagree with you i think steve erlewines reviews are shitty
i just got the last dj in the mail from bmg even tho i didnt order it. i was scared to listen to it cause he tore it to pieces in his review and it really stood out to me that they would diss him so harshly
so i figured the album must have been a tuneless rant and rave against the evilness of the record industry,
ive listened to it two times already and its not horribley bad cd although it def wont rank as his best work ever, but its still pretty tunefull and listenable album altogether

quote:

i guess i would disagree with you i think steve erlewines reviews are shitty

I definitely agree. I hate when a critic believes he has to be bitchy to be a true critic. Plus, this guy reviewed Mariah Carey's new album in a completely unobjective manner.

He was so obviously influenced by the current sheep-call, "she looks like Beyonce on the cover," that he went as far as accusing her of copying Beyonce's musical style throughout the album. Say what you want about Carey, but there's nothingin her music- past or present- that can be likened to Beyonce's.

But then again, we live in a country that celebrates mediocrity. Which is why the same nonsense is said in 55% of reviews.

...And for the record, I love AMG. They usually hit pretty close to the mark.

Welcome, merquery, some of our members believe that AMG is an over-rating suck-fest, but since they usually suck up to my faves, that's OK. Please post often!

Thanks, mark.
I like AMG, 'cause they often tear down albums that need tearing down, even those by total geniuses like Prince. But I used a Carey instance because after reading that review, I went back and read all the reviews Erlewine previously wrote on her, and he obviously had an aversion to her. I mean, I wasn't crazy about her either, but I was objective enough to like the new direction she went in, and I bought my first Carey album today.

That kind of objectivity is all I ask of a critic.

I disagree that AMG would be better without the reviews. When I search for some obscure band, and they have a list of twelve albums, I want to have some idea which ones are worthwhile and which aren't. AMG would be useless to me if it were just a listing.

I'd say sometimes they prop up crappy albums, but the same goes for all sources.

Well, Bob, I don't believe in "yes men", but that is correct. No matter what you think of AMG, they do try to put things into some semblance of ORDER!

Hey, if I knew nothing about the Rolling Stones, and I was checking them out for the first time, it'd benefit me to know that Exile on Main St is more worth looking into than Bridges to Babylon.

Otherwise I may hear Bridges to Babylon, assume it's representative of their best material, and dismiss the Rolling Stones completely. At the very least they should put those little checks of theirs next to their opinion of the best in the catalogue.

It also never hurts to have one more review in addition to the other 20 available to us.

i dont think mariah carey has ever sounded like beyonce's but its hard to have a definitive style all of youre own when like 98% of these people use the same producers.
just to prove my point look at someone like sade she doesnt sound anything like anyone else she has a very unique sound
and thats because she works with people who dont whore themselves out to every every pop-r&b and crossover rappers out there.
as far as i can tell shes used the same people througout her career and has even co produced her own stuff wich is extremely rare for a women in any music genre.

Well, thing about pop-R&B and pop-rap today, they cross-advertise by *being* similar.

I noticed this right before the time I became completely disgusted with MTV in 1997 or so. Rappers would put some new guy they're trying to popularize as a guest in the song of a well established rappers' song. Then that new rapper would release his own song which would become a hit. Then a bit later, they'd use that new rapper to popularize some other new rapper they want to popularize. And voila...rappers like Mase and Nelly sell tons of records. Cool by association.

Mariah Carey was actually popularized on *her own merits* back in the 90s, but it's no particular surprise to see her being used to popularize the flavor of next month. And for that to work she has to sound similar to the new artists they're trying to puff up.

but i think you can have a longer lasting career if you have youre own sound e.g again sade,
lord knows she dont put out records on any recurring basis but when she does it always does good
and shes had a longer lasting career than a lot of her peers,

think about it if you dont like the direction mariah is going in you can find 10,00 other artists that are very similar to her and thats going to cost her fans in the long run

but i cant think of anyone that sounds similar to sade so her fans would be a lot more forgiving if she didnt put out a record every other year or if it went in a direction they didnt like.

I guess my point is this:
You're being paid to be a more authoritative musical ear than mine. Shit, if you're gonna unobjectively regurtitate tired media-speak, complete with asinine "bootylicious" and "bling-bling" references- without any discernable musical insights- then why should I bother with you, seeing as I possess a fully functional pair of ears to accompany a brain and years of music-consuming experience?

Best reviewer on AMG - Heather Phares.

But Stephen would be a close second. His reviews are sometimes a bit Pitchforky, but I don't consider that a bad thing.

OOC...what, specifically do you mean by 'Pitchforky'? Because when I think of 'Pitchfork', I think of...sometimes superficial reviews based on presumptuous analyses of the trends and the buzz surrounding the piece without focusing much on the actual piece. Like, they compare two things that don't sound remotely alike at all (Re: Mahjongg), or they accuse bands of plagiarism (Re: White Stripes) because they sound vaguely influenced by some other band (Re: Stooges) and then decry the band they're reviewing for failing to live up to said other band they are influenced by.

If you're using 'Pitchforky' positively, I'm curious what you associate with it, that you're saying Stephen reviews like.

I LOVE AMG

In general, I find AMG to be very helpful, especially when looking to get into a band's back catalogue. There are the occasional really awful reviews (the review of Blur's Think Tank is a disgrace), which are to be expected with a database of that size, but for the most part, it's one of my favourite reference sources for music.

I'm considering ordering the AMG in book form. I don't have a laptop so I feel it'd be nice to have it as a coffee-table book of sorts. Can anybody think of any reasons besides this to own a paper version of something like AMG, or reasons why it's a stupid idea? Imagine if Pitchfork released a book version of every review and article they ever posted with an index. Would that excite anybody in this forum? Would you burn any bookstore that carried it to the ground? Peace.

Long before I used the online version of AMG, I would spend hours pouring through my hard copy of the Guide. I almost never refer to it anymore, although sometimes when their still glitchy site is poking along too slowly I'll reach for it. I probably access the site hundreds of times per week, and I believe it is an invaluable tool. My favorite writer is Heather Phares and my least favorite is Stephen Thomas Erlewine. I do get a bit annoyed when they don't take certain artists to task, but I think erring on the side of a positive review is actually a pretty good thing.

The one thing I think absolutely stinks about AMG is that they do not accept help from the public. Months ago, I tried to contact them concerning some completely bogus information on this page. Not only was Greg Kihn never part of Earth Quake, but their first album came out on A&M in 1971. Also this makes it sound as if Kihn's solo career started in 1980, of course if you go to this page you'll see they have their facts straight (they even mention Earthquake in Kihn's bio but don't associate him as being in that band!). Anyway, I'm sure there are hundreds (if not thousands) of other examples of misinformation. Everyone makes mistakes, but you have to have a system that will listen to and respond to customer feedback. I'm not talking Wiki here either, just listen to the customers, research to make sure that what ther are saying is true, and then fix it!

The other thing that irritates me is, as some of the posts above mentioned, finding an album that not only does not have a review but it isn't even rated. In this day and age, I think this is totally unacceptable. There are litterally hundreds of people who could write up reviews to fill some of the gaping holes in the AMG (and here's the kicker) FOR FREE! I mean just look around this site for crying out loud. I'm sure you could find a couple of dozen music geeks willing to submit a few write-ups. Sure there has to be quality assurance, but that's what the editor is for. I'm not asking for every new indie-release to have review, mind you. I'm talking about artists like Paul Kelly (as Mark F mentioned above), who have extensive catalogs and formidable followings.

Apologies for the rant, I had a bit of an insomnia bout this morning and now the day is about to begin (Go Vols!)

I also really like allmusic but I can see where you are coming from Jack. I also check out that website hundreds of times in a span of a week, it is filled with tons of information and I do like they way they review albums there. Surprisingly, one of my favorite writers is Stephen Thomas Erlewine.

I also agree with you in that they have a lot of gaps that need to be filled in. Sometimes I am looking for a review of an album but they simply don't have enough information on the artist--let alone album reviews for their music. And sometimes there is a rating but no review, that's very frustrating.

That beind said, it is still probably my favorite review site--along with the A.V. Club--and it is a lot classier and more reliable than some other ones out there.

Allmusic.com is easily the most consistent and reliable music resource in the world. They avoid individual bias of many critics for well rounded reviews whether I agree with them or not......I agree with them more than any other resource. They make all other music journalism look silly in my opinion. Pitchfork or Rolling Stone are predictable and are usually based on poor reviews by critics trying to make a point rather than judge the music. Specifically RS......eww....