You guys are busy obsessing over some obscure indie bands while completely glossing over my actual point. Look, it’s not exactly rocket science to get your name listed on a site like that—anyone can do it, really. There's zero gatekeeping and no real oversight involved. But a platform loses all its credibility the moment it starts peddling inaccurate data. That’s just how it works. Period.
Daniel Edwards said:If AllMusic is supposed to be a database, then it’s an incredibly narrow one—it mostly just covers the big names, which doesn't do much for me. I could list hundreds of artists who are completely invisible to AllMusic but have at least a few crumbs of info on Last.fm. As for The Beatles, everyone knows everything about them anyway; you can find any scrap of info you want on a million other sites. But for those niche bands where nobody is really "in the loop"—those acts most people haven't even heard of—AllMusic is basically useless. RYM is slightly better at tracking down obscure artists, but even they get bogged down by the Last.fm approach. Personally, I find the concept of everyone rating everything and throwing stars around to be less useful than just having data—I shouldn't have to sift through the noise to figure out what actually matters.🤷
We aren't even talking about the same thing here. A site that prides itself on substance over sheer volume should prioritize quality. To put it plainly, I don't care about digging up unknown indie acts; I want to look up things like The Beatles. And if I check Last.fm for their album Help!, it tells me it contains James Bond Theme, The Chase, and The Bitter End... which is just wrong. So, how am I supposed to trust information on lesser-known performers? I can't. I don't rely on it. Because when I actually stumble upon an obscure band I want to hear, I can't even be sure I'm listening to the right track.
Or, say, if I wanted to find something by the American band Boa. Click and all I get is a notification that there are other bands with the same name, followed by a messy pile of songs from all of them mixed together in a way that's totally unhelpful.
I'm not trying to bash the site—I use it quite a bit myself—but the facts are what they are.
It seems a bit silly to attack AllMusic or RYM based on their core concepts if they're actually being consistent and reliable. Everyone should just pick the tool that works for them. Sure, AllMusic might have a limited number of artists in its database, but the data is largely dependable. RYM allows anyone to leave a rating—much like how everyone jumps on IMDb threads to give their two cents—but at least on RYM, every entry goes through some level of verification before it hits the site.
Everything there is to say has been said. I’m just pointing out that the whole thing lacks reliability—mostly because someone browsing without context might walk away thinking the album Help! actually opens with the James Bond theme (!). This is supposed to be a space for casual hanging out and kicking back, not some high-level database like IMDb.
But where’s all the info on the original pressing? That's actually what I'm looking for. And where did this James Bond theme thing even come from? If we’re claiming to be top-tier sites, leaving stuff like that out is just unacceptable. I'm not saying Last.fm isn't decent in some ways—it has its moments—but it’s nowhere near the level of IMDb, AllMusic, or RYM...
It claims the album came out in 1990—which is obviously a joke—and says there are 13 tracks, even though if you actually read the text, it mentions 7 plus 7. And don't even get me started on the tracklist itself. Honestly, this isn't just a one-off error; it’s far from being a rare occurrence. 😉
Last.fm has this massive flaw where it fails to distinguish between different artists sharing the same name. It just tosses them all into one big bucket—which makes it impossible to tell who actually belongs to whom. Plus, honestly, the whole platform isn't even particularly reliable to begin with.
Donna Castillo38 said:Honestly, who cares what some critic thinks about a track? You’ve got ears—just listen to the music and decide if you dig it for yourself. 🤷
That said, finding something decent through a solid recommendation is usually easier. You have to start somewhere, and it's better than just blindly stumbling into whatever's playing at random. 😉
I don't really get why everyone gets so worked up 🙂 when rolling stone puts out a list like this on their site. Personally, I actually find it pretty useful—it gives me a reason to pay attention to things I might otherwise just overlook. And honestly, whether I agree with their picks or not isn't even the point. 🤷
The main thing is they’ve nominated Red Hot Chili Peppers, Coldplay, and Šulić/Hauser (!!!) for international artists—even though legends like The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, and Bruce Springsteen (who will inevitably be up next year) haven't even dropped new albums lately. It's because the committee simply has no clue what’s actually happening globally. Honestly, they don't care. They’ve heard of these specific names, sure, but they probably haven't even listened to the actual records. And I'm betting my life Šulić/Hauser are guaranteed to snag a Grammy for Best International Album. It's just pathetic.
Here are the winners from 1994 through 2010 (for best albums in those years, not lifetime achievement awards) 😳 and 🙈 Whitney Houston Pink Floyd Pink Floyd Eros Ramazzotti The Rolling Stones Madonna Santana U2 Sting Red Hot Chili Peppers Sting Ray Charles The Rolling Stones Red Hot Chili Peppers Norah Jones AC/DC Bruce Springsteen
So, you're thinking about naming it something like a tribute to Led Zeppelin and Aerosmith, but what if the actual band members aren't exactly fans of the idea? 🤔
You really should have laid that out in the opening post—and honestly, even the title needs more clarity—otherwise there’s no way for anyone to actually know what they're supposed to be looking for here.
brighteagle26 said:Since I haven't really been keeping up with recent production lately—and honestly, I've grown pretty bored with those prehistoric acts—I’d love some recommendations for anything high-quality released in this current era. Just a heads-up: nothing indie, hip-hop, R&B, or similar genres, please.
hm, R&B and indie aren't even in the same ballpark. So, what's actually left on the table? 🤔
slyorca62 said:Look, you can't please everyone—different strokes for different folks, I guess. We don't all think or vibe the same way, which is probably why. Personally, I think they're pretty mediocre, but hey, if people want to enjoy them... life is too short to spend it being miserable about someone else's fun.
Sure, sure, that logic applies to pretty much any genre—even something like bad pop or trashy country—but that’s not really what we’re getting at here. People should play whatever they feel like. But we *can* talk about the actual value of it, or the purpose behind it... I don't mind a tribute concert, but I've never been a fan of bands that build their entire careers solely on someone else's legacy.🤷
I honestly don't see the point in these tribute bands—groups that might be technically proficient at mimicking a sound, sure, but they completely fail to capture the actual soul or the raw message of the original artists. It’s hard to wrap my head around why anyone would pour their talent and years of practice into something so fundamentally uncreative. I mean, isn't there a much greater satisfaction in actually building something new—something original that belongs to you?
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against covers. If a musician finds genuine inspiration in a song and wants to offer their own unique interpretation, that can actually add a layer of personal artistry to the work. But trying to hijack an entire discography and basically cosplay as someone else's identity? That’s just nonsense. Bands that have already folded have already said what they had to say—there’s nothing left to add. For me, nobody can ever replace The Beatles, Bob Marley, or any of those legends. And frankly, I have no interest in listening to anyone who tries to step into those shoes. Besides, when I listen to the original acts, I'm looking for that specific, god-given spark that makes them unique in the first place. 🙂
Steven Ruiz said:@ silverpanther13, the rules aren't set in stone, you know? They’re actually evolving and being updated all the time based on what the community thinks, so I'm not quite sure why you feel like we can't have a discussion about them... For instance, we're currently in the middle of tweaking the rule regarding image dimensions right now. There's a poll live, so go ahead and weigh in if you want to make your voice heard!
Fine, I will. Look, I was typing this out pretty quickly so things might be a little unpolished, but my point is that you weren't really considering changing the photography dimensions in this specific instance—even though there's plenty of evidence that other moderators have pushed for similar changes. It also rubbed me the wrong way when you mentioned you "turn a blind eye" to panoramas, especially since I had one ready to go at that exact moment—almost as if I wasn't supposed to post it. But whatever, you'll let it slide eventually. And just to be clear, I'm not attacking anyone here; I'm just voicing my thoughts on things that could be handled better.
Megan White4, you definitely earned that ban for being insulting. Breaking the rules needs to be stopped, sure, but arguing about the rules themselves shouldn't be off-limits. I think exceptions—like the one you needed—should occasionally be allowed if they actually make sense, provided there’s an agreement and permission from the higher-ups, rather than just doing whatever you want. What else I want to mention—and this is something that usually blows up in my face—is criticizing the moderators' work, especially when they aren't doing much, or rather, when they're neglecting their duties. As just an average user, I don't have a "right" to do that, and it's not up to the users to decide who should or shouldn't be a moderator. Then everything gets flipped onto a personal level, and suddenly I'm the bad guy because I'm calling out individuals, which isn't true at all. It's not like anyone bothers me personally; in fact, in certain cases, I actually really like certain people and value what they do—I'm honestly sorry when they aren't around. But if they aren't performing the job they were chosen for, why shouldn't that be noticed and pointed out? Meanwhile, you have people contributing to the site, people who actually care about things running smoothly and who willingly set aside time for the good of the community. Why can't the moderator selection process be more transparent? And why shouldn't the voices of the users be heard—not to pick the moderators, but to express their opinions? I think everyone would be more satisfied that way. Unless I'm wrong in thinking that the forum exists for the users, and that the users are what make the forum. And as for why it's always the same handful of people complaining... I wonder that myself too.
