Most of the people on allmusic.com

They gave every Beatles album save for "Let It Be five" stars, including "Beatles for Sale", but I've only seen one or two albums from any artist during the last 15 that they've given that score.

They're also hideously inconsistant, I've seen them give albums 4 and a half while pretty much calling them pieces of shit.

I stopped taking allmusic seriously after they gave Faith No More's King For a Day 2 stars and called it underrated.

For me it was them giving Obscured by Clouds 2 stars and Ummagumma a goddamn 3 and a half, even though it seemed like they gave the former a warmer review than the latter, then again they didn't actually review Ummagumma, they just gave a description without any opinion whatsoever. It's like they rate albums solely on popularity and they just don't give a f*ck if it's consistant with the review or not.

They gave Michael Jackson's Bad a 4 and a half while saying it only had 3 good songs. Seriously, how ridiculously inept can you get?

Hardly the brightest candles in the chandelier eh. The popularity figures on LastFM and RYM are the one's I look to for reliable ratings, which 90% of the time proves to be the case.

Lester Bangs and Charles Shaar Murray are pretty harebrained as well. If I could find it, I'd type up a bit Murray's review of David Bowie's Low as an example. Oh, and Tony Blackburn's a grade-A tit as well.

i don't know what you idiots are bitching about, AMG is easily the least biased source for music reviews and a good source of information to learn about music in general. or, in case you hadn't noticed, they have reviews on practically every band that's ever been remotely popular. they might misinterpret an album here or there but more often than not they're fairly accurate in their appraisals.

if you're going to bitch about All Music, what's next?

sunshine? oxygen?

I'm a big fan of allmusic as well, though I do question their ratings from time to time.

I am NOT a fan of Pitchfork media at all. They gave Dan Le Sac Vs. Scroobius Pip's 2008 debut Angles a .something out of 10 because of one part in the song "Thou Shalt Always Kill" where Scroobius Pip says:

"Thou shalt not put recording artists on ridiculous pedestals no matter how great they are or were: The Beatles... Were just a band.
Led Zepplin... Just a band.
The Beach Boys... Just a band.
The Sex Pistols... Just a band.
The Clash... Just a band.
Crass... Just a band.
Minor Threat... Just a band.
The Cure... Just a band.
The Smiths... Just a band.
Nirvana... Just a band.
The Pixies... Just a band.
Oasis... Just a band.
Radiohead... Just a band.
Bloc Party... Just a band.
The Arctic Monkeys... Just a band.
The Next Big Thing.. JUST A BAND.


That stanza seemed to negate the songs about how suicide isn't the answer or the one about how you should take a step back and evaluate all the angles to a situation before you take a side, or an open letter from God to Man about how much we've done to fuck up this planet, or the spectacular one just littered with advice on how to live a positive lifestyle. But no, Mr. Pip you didn't agree with me and my self-righteous attitude concerning 15 bands so therefore your entire album is crap. **** off you miserable twats

Music journalism is something I'm very passionate about. I'd love to right for a magazine one day but for now I'm writing for blogs and such.

I don't think music critics are outdated, we need reviews and recommendations. I just dislike obviously biased reviewers, like say Robert or anyone down at Rolling Stone.

I'm not talking about music critics.

Just the so called "professional" music critics who have to rely on their educational background to concince people that they know what they're talking about even when they don't, critics for magazines and newspapers who actually make a career out of it.

I'm not talking about bloggers, online music journals or user reviews on websites and stuff like that. That stuff actually IS helpful.