1

willing to have fewer bios for more reviews

I've praised Allmusic's bios when my expectations have been surpassed.  But frankly, most bios are like encyclopedic overviews that copy info from the discography into narrative form.  Rarely do bios go deeper by including a critical perspective of the artist's career development within the historical context of popular music.

So to me, the most valuable sections of a bio are its "member of" and "collaborated with" sections because these sections help me to explore the artist's other projects.  As long as these sections are kept updated, then I'd be willing to not expect that the narrative bio be updated or even to have any narrative bio at all.  I'd willingly have editors spend less time on narrative bios, if that could free them to review more albums.

Follow

1 reply

Votes Newest Oldest

Thanks for the input.

The customers of the data have been leaning more and more toward displaying bios over the past decade (AllMusic.com is actually one of the few places still displaying reviews anymore), so the editorial team has chosen to focus on bios over reviews for this reason.

Comment

Ok Zac, I understand that I'm just an user.  I value Allmusic's full reviews, because others generally write short reviews.  But I'm also noticing that the number of full reviews are decreasing, while the number of bios are increasing.

Before Allmusic prioritized bios, I'd regarded full bios like a treat (and continued to until this idea).  So I gave them a pass when I felt many lacked depth.  I suspect that bios lack depth when assigned to editors who aren't very familiar with the artist's career (but may be familiar with the artist's music).

Reply