Talk:AllMusic

relation to 1992 book

I had added a section on the relation of the AM website to the AM Guide book published in 1992, which had been deleted with a comment that it was irrelevant. I don't think it's irrelevant at all b/c 1) it fills in the history of the data & AM's transition from a paper-based to internet-based service, and 2) it documents the fact that the classical music info. was cut during this transition. If a reader is looking at the page in order to evaluate a music guide, they should know that there's actually much more info. on classical music available in the book version (which is still widely held by libraries etc.). Derickfay192.52.218.40 (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Leave AMG Alone

Don't like its ratings? Complain about it in a blog or something! This is NOT to discuss whether you agree that Nickelback deserves its rating or not. And as for those complaining of bias...no DUH! its not robots rating this. There is ALWAYS going to be bias if something is reviewed by a human. Get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.147.61 (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not trivial. Wikipedia pays this organisation tremendous respect, references them countless times (an operation that bequeathes on them considerable financial leverage) and yet has the ability to launch or damage musical careers. In one article, ([[1]]), this same organisation describes William Shakespeare's poetry in Sonnet #131 and Twelfth Night as "cringe-worthy." In others, the information is unreliable. Is allmusic donating to Wikipedia? Laetoli (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to prove it is unreliable, and not just an objection to one of the site's hundreds or even thousands of reviews?--3family6 (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, actually. Here's a small sample of the errors I regulary find in allmusic. Chumbawamba's formation story ([2]) - compare that to wikipedia's version Chumbawamba - quite different initial personnel, don't you think. Allmusic lists two of Nic Jones's albums ("In Search of Nic Jones" and "Game Set Match") as compilations ([3])whereas, in fact, they are both live albums containing some material not found on his released studio work and no re-released work at all. Allmusic ([4]) think Simon Emmerson merely produced some of Afro Celt Sound System's songs, whereas he was the guy who formed the band (cf. wiki article). Allmusic have Nitin Sawhney's studio albums as "Prophecy[sic],Migration,Displacing the Priest,Beyond Skin,Spirit Dance,Prophesy,Human,Fabriclive.15,AllMixed Up,Introducing...,Philtre,The Namesake,In the Mind of Nitin Sawhney) ([5]). Quite a few of these are compilations and the real sequence of studio work is quite different being "Spirit Dance,Migration,Displacing the Priest,Beyond Skin,Prophesy,Human,London Undersound". In fact, practically every allmusic article I've just read looking for inaccuracies differs substantially, though often in a minor way, from the wiki account (see Eddi Reader etc.) Laetoli (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Your edit [6] is original research. You yourself mind find this review "contentious" but unless it's covered by independent reliable sources it has no place here. Rehevkor ✉ 12:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, actually. Here's a small sample of the errors I regulary find in allmusic. Chumbawamba's formation story ([7]) - compare that to wikipedia's version Chumbawamba - quite different initial personnel, don't you think. Allmusic lists two of Nic Jones's albums ("In Search of Nic Jones" and "Game Set Match") as compilations ([8])whereas, in fact, they are both live albums containing some material not found on his released studio work.

website is often slow or totally inaccessible

Their website is great, but its very important to note that their website has a consistent track record of loading pages very slowly, and often not at all. I've added a note to about this in the article. This is not an issue specific to my computer or connection as I've encountered their site's terribly poor performance from many different computers in many different types of setups, different browsers, different locations and different types of net connections, so it's not an isolated issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.194.53 (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I second that. I can't think of any other high profile site with such poor networking performance. I have no ideea what kept them from doing anything about this for over 2 years now, if I'm not mistaken. Yang (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ratings

I don't agree with the reviews, often enough, particularly the "album picks". Reviews of something as subjective as a music CD are never going to be very accurate, especially when a review tries to boil the music down to an inane "star" rating. It's one thing for a reviewer to personalize a review, making it clear that the rating is the reviewer's personal take, not some objective truth.

I don't think that AMG ratings, no matter how professional they are, should be included in the infobox for albums. I believe that these ratings may give a bias toward (or against) some albums (none in particular). --Ryan! | Talk 18:48, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that these discussion pages are for discussing the actual article on Wikipedia rather than the topic itself. This whole section seems to be discussing the merits of the AMG ratings but not the article on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.80.2.30 (talk) 22:00, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't this be said for the NME (biased toward non-mainstream music) or Rolling Stone (biased toward rock)? What makes AMG different and why should it be excluded? Acegikmo1 5 July 2005 00:02 (UTC)

"I believe that these ratings may give a bias toward (or against) some albums (none in particular)." Um, how cryptic. :) What exactly to you is evidence of this bias? That some albums get higher ratings than others? Would you prefer a ratings system where every album gets the same rating? That would be completely bias-free. The fact of the matter is, ALL reviews have some bias. The thing that makes AMG so great is that their ratings reflect more of a "critical consensus" than just some guy randomly choosing ratings: accepted classics of the genre get 5 stars, near-classics 4.5, solid albums get 4, and so on down the line. Sometimes ratings even change to reflect changes in the consensus: Oasis has had their first two albums bumped up to 5 stars from 4.5. (Very few original albums get 5 stars immediately upon release.) After years and years of having EVERY original album The Beatles ever did at 5 stars, AMG finally took down Let It Be to 4.5...not because of one man's bias, but because that album's critical stature has dwindled over the years. Bottom line: AMG is not perfect, but nothing is, and it comes as close as you possibly can. StarryEyes 05:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I second StarryEyes - some indication of critical consensus is clearly of interest to most readers. Thomas Ash 19:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's useful to point out what AllMusic says about its ratings system, [here]

How does your ratings system work?

Our experts use a 1 to 5 star system (5 is the highest rating). It is important to note that we rate albums only within the scope of an artist’s own work -- we only compare a release to other releases by the same artist. We won't compare a Britney Spears album to the latest release by Incubus. When looking at an artist's discography, you may see a check mark next to the star rating of a release. That represents the AMG Pick for the release most representative of that artist's entire body of work. On specific release pages you may also see smaller checks next to two or three tracks on a recording. Those are AMG Song Picks. These are the songs on a recording that our experts feel are most representative of the entire release.

For classical albums, two ratings are provided: one for performance/musical quality, and one for sound quality. These are applied on a more universal scale than the non-classical ratings, because a classical album is rarely the work of a single artist or group, and so cannot usually be evaluated within the scope of a single artist’s discography.

Okay, if that were true, then logically all artsts would have at least one five star album (the pinnacle of their work) and the rest would go down from there. Needless to say, this isn't the case. Maybe genres more so, but the artists are not rated in their own little vacuum. --72.81.54.100 01:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If that were true, Please Please Me could not reasonably held in the same stature as Abbey Road. The former album is quality nostalgia, the latter album is true art. Yellow Submarine's score section is essentially dismissed as worthless, since they say the album would have been better as an EP. The dismissal of Martin's score strikes me as snobbery against symphonic music, as the score is very good. --Scottandrewhutchins 19:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I was shocked when I saw Beatles for Sale was rated on the same level as Sgt. Pepper's and Abbey Road. AMG say that their ratings are based on the scope of an artist's work - in that case, the BFS and AB ratings cannot stand together. Even the review on Beatles for Sale makes light of its unevenness. Flaming Pie also mentions the amount of filler on it, yet it gets 4.5 stars. Rogerthat ^Talk 12:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thus, I feel that AllMusic star ratings should not be used on album pages Alcuin 16:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

All ratings are qualified and limited. Hyacinth 05:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with those who think they should be removed. I've been adding to GWAR-related pages lately, and although I'm biased because I'm a big fan, AMG's coverage of the band is total shit. Their "experts" state in the bio that the name is an acronym, something denied by the band itself. Regarding their ratings being a critical consensus type of deal, It may true for more popular bands, but for GWAR they rate This Toilet Earth, Ragnarok, and Beyond Hell as being worse than We Kill Everything which is largely considered the band's worst album by fans. In summary, i'm saying for bands that don't have much mainstream exposure AMG shouldn't be linked. for Hendrix or Beatles fine because there are generally links to other site's reviews. With a band like GWAR the only links are to AMG because of its scope despite its low quality when dealing with cult bands Oderus 00:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Oderus

Personally, I believe AMG ratings are rather worthless. I don't know if anyone has noticed, but they routinely change reviews and ratings to fit popular opinion. Ratings from a site or publication like this aren't worth much. 67.116.253.238 02:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree to the Original (quite old) point made in this "ratings" section, and to the most recent ones. Although I have agreed to most of the ratings I've seen, I think they are bias and they are the opion of somebody that is not the wiki reader themselves, and I don't think they should be included in album infoboxes. Its up to people individually what they think of an album. Ben 02:33 25th February 2007 (UTC)

• I join the choir. The AMG ratings are too biased. Bengt 16:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I loathe AMG's reviews of Kansas. They consider Drastic Measures, their worst album by fan consensus, a small improvement over the 1-star Monolith, one of the group's best albums, and overall, their reviews of the group have an anti-prog tone lathered with words like "pretentious". --Scottandrewhutchins 15:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Review of Love Beach by Bruce Eder on AMG: "A record that the group released only because they owed it to their original label, and that's all one needs to know." He still gave it 1 1/2 stars. Eder's review is incompetent though and through.--Scottandrewhutchins 19:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm of the opinion that the reviews are pretty crappy, though i feel that rather than remove all ratings, there should be a list of reputable free review sites for certain genres that can be listed for review in the music box, e.g. metal music uses 'the metal observer'... i think this already done but still is there a formal page on the structure of the 'ratings' system for albums

they suck and are on EVERY album page or whatever. i ALSO don't think they're notable enough to be so widespreadly used. there needs to be a WP policy on reviews!!! ~fredsaidbed

• Look, if anyone is convinced that the AMG review for your favorite band/album isn't properly glamorized, then just add any review you find that approves with your sense of thinking from a notable magazine or web publication with a realiable source. Many times, even if it is a negative review, the amg link provides more info that sometimes is missed on the wikipedia article. There is no reason to delete these ratings from the infoboxes of albums.

Nelson325 20:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• They give And Do They Do/Zoo Caprices 2 1/2 stars without even bothering to review it. Their Michael Nyman reviews consistently praise "tenor saxophonist John Harle"--the tenor saxophonist is Andrew Findon, so their reviewers are obviously not good at reading album credits...Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to include AMG ratings on album pages. For starters, their ratings system is only relevant within that one artists discography. Also, "All music" is not a person, so who exactly is giving the rating? Most of their critics are not 'notable'. 118.208.240.188 (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea who made those critics templates, thought wikipedia is objective and is not related to any external for profit sites.SHAMAN 13:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ad?

Compared with the entry on Gracenote, this sounds like advertising. Like it's written by a blurbwriter. I guess it's hard to edit something as elusive as style though. 81.156.49.248 02:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What about how they rate some albums without a review. Who gives these ratings? Also, there are some written reviews that differ somewhat in tone from the numerical rating. (i.e., a glowing review but a mediocre rating.)--65.32.93.18 21:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Template

The templates {{allmusicguide}} or {{amg}} can be used to easily make links to All Music Guide entries on bands and other content. See Template talk:allmusicguide for instructions on use. —Mulad (talk) 21:17, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

All Music, however, does have a few errors. For example, in the case of Elton John's album "Greatest Hits Volume 2", the guide states that it was released in 1986 instead of 1977, and the track listing only shows the tracks from the 1992 reissue of the album (which replaced two songs with two different songs). Also, a common error in the listings is albums that were released before 1983 being listed with CD releases at the time of the albums original release. User:THollan

Didn't you mean to say "a few thousand errors"? Monicasdude 13:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Yers. It's dead handy, but you have to take it with a pinch of salt. The entry on Ultravox [9] doesn't mention their only real claim to fame, the single "Vienna", the feature-length entry for the Penguin Cafe Orchestra [10] fails to give any information whatsoever about the group other than its name and the name of its second album, which is in turn identified in its article as the group's debut [11], the article on Throbbing Gristle's 20 Jazz Funk Greats praises it for a song ("Hamburger Lady") which was on the previous album, and the articles for British and other non-US acts tend to start with "Although NAMEOFBAND was never particularly popular in America, the group had several hits in their native country". And if I see the awful word 'sophomore' once more I will hurt myself with a pen. The rest of the world hates America enough without you having to destroy our music.-Ashley Pomeroy 22:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, chill, mate. The AMG has some errors. Some several thousand, perhaps. But for that matter, Wikipedia has some errors...and, yes, some several thousand, perhaps. That doesn't mean it isn't a valuable source of information. You just have to view things critically (no pun intended), and realize that, like Wikipedia, information beyond bare facts on relatively obscure artists is never going to be perfect. Although one thing you have to keep in mind is that sometimes US and UK versions of albums differ, so perhaps the track was on the US version of the album. Furthermore, sometimes albums never get release in the US, so an American debut might be a UK sophomore effort. Unlike Wikipedia, however, it is a site made exclusively by Americans, so US-centric points of view are to be expected! And, of course, vocabulary too. I think you need to relax a little. I mean, I don't have the inclination to hurt myself with a pen every time I see a British website prattle on about "Manchester United Football". It still takes a minute to register: "oh, they mean THAT kind of football...not 'football' as in football". I'm sure you're "taking the piss", as you British say, when you talk about how the rest of the world hates America and you hate us even more because of a website...at least to a degree, I would hope. But if you really hate it so much, hey, I'm sure you could register http://www.UKCentricMusicGuideThatNeverOnceUsesTheWordSophomore.co.uk StarryEyes 05:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Isn't all AMG content free on the website?

I was always under the impression that it was... perhaps a little more information on what precisely isn't included would be of interest to readers? Thomas Ash 15:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Vladimir Bogdanov

This article states the Vladimir Bogdanov is one of the founders. The linked article is for a russian businesspeople; is this really the same person? Jayvdb 14:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Prominent Genre Sourcing

This comment is to start a discussion about AMGs prominence as a reference for musical genres. I have used AMG for much research although it seems to be hardly the last word. Since AMG figures so highly into what music critics are using as reference material i think it is important to note their influence in the AMG article. Since they are free to publish what they want and it might not be sufficiently referenced or cross checked, they have the tendency (in my opinion) to publish slightly sub-standard genre descriptions and are usually 2-3 years behind on their band biographies. These problems may be only apparent on their allmusic.com website, while the actually database may contain more in-depth information. Since I dont have access to the database I couldn't say. However since the allmusic.com site is one of the main sources for referencing music info, I thought it should be noted. Xsxex 06:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on their substandard genre listings. I've found that they list any band that became popular in the mid or late 90's as post-grunge, including such ridicolous claims as blink-182. On multiple talk pages we have came to the conclusions not to use AMG as a source as it is unreliable. In fact I just spent the past minutes cleaning up some articles to get rid of the AMG sources. I highly reccomend people stop using it as a source.Hoponpop69 04:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

They're notoriously unreliable. Dont EVER use AMG!--SilverOrion (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

AMG worships at the temple of Nirvana and gives low ratings to anything it considers artsy-fartsy or ambitious. IT should be avoided like the plague and I think omitted from infoboxes on album articles. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, this site has little if any veracity as a reliable source and should not be used as one, as it has demonstrated a serious lack of knowledge about genre definitions over a long period of time. Wiki is crippling itself by using it as one of its main sources. 216.107.197.3 (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.107.197.115 (talk)

Throughout Wikipedia we should stop accepting Allmusic as a source for genre info.

Allmusic's taxonomy of genres is one of many on the web, and to their credit, it is certainly one of the most comprehensive, at least for popular music. But it often makes dubious connections between disparate genres, dumps artists in too-broad genres, or flat-out invents new genre names (like "post disco") just to fill in gaps and to have a place to file every artist & song under, without regard for how anyone else in the world categorizes the music. It's entirely their system for categorizing artists & songs. They also paid people (at one time, credited on each page, now anonymous) to write a little description of each of the genres in a way that acknowledges the links they set up. Sometimes the info is correct or at least plausible, but other times, it's reaching quite a bit.

Inevitably, articles were created on Wikipedia to mirror Allmusic's taxonomy, and used Allmusic as their primary source of info. Some of these have since been beefed up with additional, much more academic and reliable sources which confirm some of Allmusic's claims. Others are still floundering, relying on and repeating Allmusic's claims as fact. I've seen attempts to delete the articles about Allmusic-invented genres, or prune Allmusic's influence from other articles, meet with resistance from those who seem convinced of Allmusic's authority and who feel Allmusic meets the letter of the law, as it were, for third-party publications that can be cited.

I'd like to see if we could get consensus for at least defaulting to saying "no" to using Allmusic as a source for genre info on Wikipedia. What do you all think? —mjb (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Leave AMG alone!!!! *sob* ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Problems re: adding AMG writer name to list

I've been trying to add an AMG writer's name to the list of other writers on AMG's Wikipedia entry, and shortly after I add it, it keeps getting erased. The editor sent me a message saying "we need a source to make sure you are not adding it for vanity reasons" - what does this mean and how do I submit a source?

Feel free to read about citing sources and reliable sources. I do not mean to attack, but to keep the article accurate, sources are needed, especially when an editor chooses to add themselves to an article. --WillMak050389 12:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Allmusic logo.gif

Image:Allmusic logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

AMG / All Music Guide / Allmusic

In 2005, All Music Guide was renamed Allmusic. I think the article should be redirected to Allmusic. Furthermore, AMG is the company who owns Allmusic; the acronym should only be used when referring to the company. Does anyone disagree? NisseSthlm (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a link at the top of this entry for the other "All Music" wiki page, but no link on THAT entry for this one. Can someone put in those changes? Acl8m (talk)acl8m —Preceding comment was added at 05:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's done now! Cheers! NisseSthlm (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Allmusic seems to now have gone into a charts freeze

Since the summer of 2008, the weekly updating of much of the present chart peak information has not been up to date and has affected much of the editors on Wikipedia who record such information on artists' pages. Every week, it fails to update its present chart peak history. Is this the only reliable source for these Wikipedia editors that we've got? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.4.135 (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

All Music Guide → Allmusic — This website now goes by the name "Allmusic" (since 2005, according to the comment above). The article should therefore be moved to reflect the current name. This discussion also includes:

• All Movie Guide → Allmovie
• All Game Guide → Allgame

which have also been renamed. —PC78 (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

capitalization

Considering that this website universally (afaict) doesn't capitalize their name, shouldn't this article follow suit? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 07:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Per MOS:TM; specifically "Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized", this article should not follow suit. Rehevkor ✉ 00:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliability

They list Rammstein as progressive metal, I don't think they are a prog band. they don't sound like a prog metal band. I think they got info wrong, are they reliable? Chigurgh (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

AllMusic reviews and biographies are reliable, but their tags are not so reliable. Hopefully that helps.--3family6 (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)