Comments on: Sick of allmusic.com!

Question: Sick of allmusic.com!

blastrid — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:17:15 -0800

MusicResourceFilter: Are there any alternatives to allmusic.com that has as comprehensive a database for band discography, biography, and ratings, with an online presence that DOESN'T suck?

I maintain the website for a live music venue that hosts a gaggle of different kinds of artists. I use allmusic.com quite often to complete our online show descriptions, and personally for all it's worth for my own library.

Those who've used it for years are probably in my camp that got infuriated by the format change a while ago. The fact is I'm still annoyed by it, and the staggeringly slow loading times (and errors) it gives me.

Music Librarians: What other music databases do you use? Is there anything as comprehensive as AMG? Do I just have to suck it up and stay with allmusic.com for their content, while overlooking their awful online execution?

By: spiderskull

spiderskull — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:24:43 -0800

If the layout and aesthetics are what really bothers you, maybe you can try using this plugin for Firefox that overrides the site's style, or alternatively, use Opera, where you can remove images and use a default (blank) CSS page.

In Opera, click on the glasses at the top-right, and hit the big button labeled "Author Mode," which will switch you into "User Mode," which just removes the site's original formatting.

By: xil

xil — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:35:52 -0800

It's not just the "layout and aesthetics" that are the problem. The site is slow to load, requires several page loads to drill down to the information you want, returns useless search results, and uses Javascript links that don't load in tabs correctly...

I could go on for hours, but I don't think a sprinkling of Firefox plugin is going to fix that very easily.

By: xil

xil — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:38:14 -0800

That said, here's one plugin that might help.

By: spiderskull

spiderskull — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:41:56 -0800

Ah, I just browsed through the site, and I agree. Their site is quite a mess. Re: the plugin xil mentioned, it seems more appropriate as a Greasemonkey script, but then again I'm not too familiar with AMG's website internals.

Since there seems to be a consensus on it, maybe making AMG aware of it will help (just get people to email them or call in for complaints).

By: bitpart

bitpart — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:54:36 -0800

Discogs?

By: blastrid

blastrid — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:26:05 -0800

Well, it's mostly artist background I'm interested in, although Discogs really takes the cake for all releases a particular artist is featured on.

sigh... maybe in this case bitching at the source is really the answer?

By: blastrid

blastrid — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:28:13 -0800

xil: your first comment isn't really an 'answer', persay, but an eloquent discription of my frustrations. so I marked it.

By: yesno

yesno — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:29:07 -0800

Wikipedia. I only go to Allmusic when there's nothing there. Metacritic when I want to see the general reaction to a new mainstream-ish album.

Wikpedia is such a lame recommendation, I know, but I am often surprised by how good some band articles are. (And how bad others are.)

By: blastrid

blastrid — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:31:28 -0800

ha! don't know why i hadn't thought of that...

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 03:22:00 -0800

Do I just have to suck it up and stay with allmusic.com for their content, while overlooking their awful online execution?

No. MP3.com licenses allmusic's content, but the interface is nicer and easier to use.