Smashing Pumpkins - Gish is 4.5 stars, along with MCATIS and Siamese Dream.

Pearl Jam - Ten is 5 stars, Yield is 2.5.

Nirvana - Nevermind, In Utero, and Unplugged are all 5 stars.

In the Aeroplane Over the Sea is only 4.5.

etc etc etc

I guess my complaint is I almost never see an album past 1990 with a 5 star rating. When do they decide that an album deserves 5 stars? Generally, allmusic is my favorite music website and they do an excellent job on reviews. But something is definitely missing with some of the best music from the 90s. Maybe they just like to wait 20ish years to see how the music ages before they give something 5 stars, I dunno.

They just pull all those rating out of their asses, just ignore them and read what actual people have to say about things.

I've found it to be a reliable website although I do not typically agree with the reviews sometimes

I find Allmusic's reviews to be very consistant and have bought a number of good records based on their opinions. Especially that 'Stephen T W whatshisface' guy.
I almost completely agree with their ranking of the Pearl Jam studio albums.


TS Ed

Stephen Thomas Erlewine, Heather Phares, Richie Unterberger, and Jason Ankeny are all really really good music critics. Whenever one of them writes a review, I take it extremely seriously. I would take any one of them over an army of shitty, incomprehensible pitchfork reviewers.

Unlike Pitchfork, which seems to rate things in inverse order, Allmusic has been pretty reliable for me. If you're trying to pick one album to listen to from an artist, it's a good place to start. As far as the five stars thing goes, I have no idea.

GEG's right. You should get your reviews from people on this board. I'm sure if you ask him nicely he'd be happy to let you know what he thought of Illinois.

i have no idea what he thought of illinoise, but i agree with his statement. he's right. talk to the people here. screw the critics. i'm sure some opinions are worth reading, as there's always someone who has decent ideas, but generally speaking people who review for a living don't have the time necessary to devote to listening to something deeply enough to form a valuable opinion.

the best music can often take time to melt into your brain.

that's just my opinion of course.

: )

It does seem like they won't go higher than 4.5 for most great records, when first released. They do, though, give out a LOT of 4.5s.

They did give Outkast's Stankonia 5 stars (go figure...definately not their best effort).

They're just really cautious and not over-opinianated with recent and non-canonised stuff.

you think ten is twice as good as yield?

rely on this board for reviews. everyone here will hook you up if they can. the past two bands this forum got me into were the black keys and my morning jacket. both are amazing.

We should all write them letters asking to make Siamese Dream and Jar of Flies 5 stars. Put them up there with thier PJ and Nirvana brethren. It's the least they deserve!

HAHA that says it all. non-canonised. what horseshit (not you but them). can't say something is great because it's great when it's not recognized as great by others?

oh puuuleeeze

They really are my most reliable source when it comes to music reviews. That doesn't mean by any means that I agree with everything they write of course.

Em. No.

I've noticed this too. As time goes on they'll probably reconsider some of their reviews.