Can they be trusted?

I used to trust them wholeheartedly. When I heard about a new artist, I'd check out their discography on allmusic.com and see which one was rated the highest. Then I'd download a few tracks off of that.

But lately, my confidence has wavered. Especially with them giving the new Bright Eyes albums 2 stars each.

For instance, I'm curious about the Zutons album but they only gave it 2 and a half stars so I'm thinking "well, if it might not be that good, I'll save my money and buy something that I know is good."

But maybe they're just full of it and don't know what they're talking about?

They're just like any other source of subjective information: subject to the biases and tastes of the individual reviewers.

You gotta look at WHO it was that wrote the review, and get to know each of their tastes to see who you tend to gravitate toward and share similar interests with. Just like any other cirtic.

The "AllMusic" name does tend to add a bit of authority to their reviews, it's true. But I think that is more in the eye of the reader than through any actual claim to superiority.

That said, I generally trust their reviews, although I am still learning how to read into them, as outlined above.

I don't trust them, especially since I've seen glowing reviews with low ratings, and vice versa. They also have problems with their release dates, which bugs me because I'm trying to organize my mp3 albums by date.

I only trust Andy Kellman's reviews. He's a nice dude in real life, too.

They're usually still right as to which is the best (or commonly considered the best) album. But their hindsight is better than their... now-... sight.

Bingo.

That's why I drift toward things like meta-critic and acclaimedmusic.net, which consolidates a number of different reviews into one rating/ranking.

I think Meta-critic is the way to go. Some of the lesser known artists either don't make it on there or have too few reviews to get a solid rating but it's helpful when looking into the more popular artists.

Andy Kellman is a solid writer with deep knowledge and tastes. I agree with most of his reviews. And I don't say that just cuz he told me he's followed my zine since the beginning

I believe I read somewhere on the site that the rating is actually a consolidation of whatever writers at allmusic had heard the album and decided to contribute their opinion. This explains why the ratings and reviews aren't always in synch.

Allmusic is an excellent resource. The main weakness I experience is it often overrates albums just because they're obscure, perhaps because the writers were so excited about discovering them for the first time. However, that's no excuse for the high ratings for Moody Blues.

Use it as a reference for descriptions and then seek more opinions or samples before buying.

They're really pretty reliable with anything pre-1980. I may disagree with some of their star ratings a little bit for classic stuff - and I may pick different favorites - but AMG is pretty solid for help delving into older stuff.

With newer stuff, you never know. I usually don't give their ratings on new albums any creedence at all.

what'd they say abot Creedence?

credence

Yeah, but I like the Moody Blues.

Have to. My wife would never have married me I hated 'em.

Definitely a good resource. I use it a lot when deciding which older albums to get from Columbia House and eMusic.

i use amg as a reference, not for reviews & ratings. and i have a HUGE problem with a lot of their electronica info- i noticed wrong titles of track names, release dates, and other such things with a few electronica artists and that bothers me.

I've pretty much decided I don't like John Bush at all. I think that's who does most of their electronic reviews.

They have been invaluable in helping me build a post 90's collection. After the late '80s I lost touch with the new music scene, while persuing a jazz collection. When I tried to catch-up in the late '90s and early '00s, they were invaluable especially in finding bands I'd like by lookng at the "similar" artists and "influences". I do think that sometimes the star rating does not match the write-up, like this example from the Screaming Blue Messiahs album "Gun Shy" :

Starting off with the hyperactive pub-rock sound of "Wild Blue Yonder," this is a great debut record. Taking its cues from punk rock, The Messiahs crank up the intensity with songs like "Smash the Marketplace" and the ominous "Let's Go Out to the Woods Tonight." If Gun-Shy stumbles, it's probably because it's a tad restrained (given the energy, volume and power these guys generated live), as if it were assumed that audiences simply might not be able to handle it all at once. Still, that's a minor complaint. This record will knock you out. Does that sound like a two star album? The lowest rating of any of their releases.[/i]

But all in all they get it right far more often than they get it wrong.

so that explains it. ugh. he needs to go. and get his damn info straight!!!! i even tried to e-mail corrections a few times, and nope it didn't happen.

i used to have the amg guide book before they really had the web site....

i remember the reviews they published about tool were that the band was really really bad......

then the website started getting (buy it now) links and all of a sudden the reviews for tool were glowing....

now they have a featured band on the homepage and im just suspect there praise now

Yeah, as most people said it's for reference, not ratings so much. They gave the Black Rider (Tom Waits) like 1 or 2 stars and that's my favorite Waits album. So shaddup.