AllMusic Reviews 11

I genuinely wonder how these people are able to breathe with their heads all the way up their assholes

I have emailed them 3 times about the CD i ordered 2 weeks ago that has not arrived I shall phone my bank on Monday to get a refund I have had a lot of CDs from all the music but i will not be ordering anymore Jill daynes.

unworthy of ad revenue

I have been using this site since 2004 and it has only gotten better. Not only is this an amazing guide for older albums (anything from 2020 and before) since they update their reviews, but even effective for compilations and checkmarks next to artist's best albums. Neutral tone and accurate biographies. Should really be the 1st place you go when discovering a new artists.

When you pay $15 for a year contribution, they do not even set "auto-renew" on you. Amazing business practice and instant 5 stars just for that.

A 'Black Mirror' scenario turned reality. Their reviews are painful to read. Whether they be positive or negative, they are unbelievably self-important, smug and nonchalant all at once. Even the chief editor, Stephen Thomas Erlewine, writes reviews this way.

Albums that don't fit the expectations of critics, like 'Huang Chung' by Wang Chung, are torn to shreds because of flaws smaller than a blood cell. Sure, the US supports free speech, but these journalists use it to gain an advantage over musicians, by taking authority over their own life stories. If you're Mount Eerie who lost his wife (no disrespect, of course), they will give a perfect score. If you're suffering any other way, they can rate whatever they want. Music is subjective, but the critics treat their reviews like the best thing since sliced bread.

Negative reviews are never helpful, only shooing away potential listeners and encouraging hard-working musicians to quit. The Angry Video Game Nerd is known for being aggressive too, but he's actually entertaining and informative while doing so. AllMusic writers are like 'Squid Game' guards, punishing those who struggle and carrying on like nothing happened. They even talk about their guidelines in a similar way, saying something like, "We rate our albums based on what the musical act has put out."

Not to mention, the site's ads are potentially dangerous, with one user I've read about getting a virus from just clicking on one. AllMusic is a corrupted mess in a world of independent minds.

Pretty much a typical "critics aka failed wannabe musicians with a bias" website. That wikipedia constantly links to it as a source for credible reviews is laughable.
They hate all live albums, acting as if they never mattered and were never good. Compilations are straight from Hell apparently and even the most influental bands apparently never made good music, if they didn't hit the carts. They actually make Rolling Stone look competent.

These are great scoundrels. Their so-called "journalists" are real incompetent and if you, a musician since always, try not to criticize their silly reviews, but only to name them in yours, the "moderators" of the site (other music experts ...) change the writing by cutting the parts that they do not like. They also have a weight and two measures: those who are convenient for them can write everything, while to others who almost always understand more, censor the reviews. Incorrect site at the service of record companies. Painful and shameful.

Worse than uninformed. Ignore their pointless reviews. Someone should shove dynamite under ther site servers.

The name says it áll', pun intended.Rave Reviews,Recommendations,Artists Profiles,and New Releases all in one box.Nobody Can Stop Reggae

After building a 700 album database, writing a dozen LP reviews, All Music tells me their policy is to not allow export to CSV file. Technology makes this very easy, but they hide behind Rovi policy to inconvenience consumer customers. As a source of reviews it is useful, but for consumer friendly record collection, go to discogs.com and don't waste time on allmusic.