I respectfully disagree. Allmusic is a pretty fair and balanced arbiter of music, much moreso than snob site like Pitchfork (which I do frequent.) It doesn’t rate artists against themselves. Good artists get good ratings. Mediocre artists get mediocre ratings. (Look at ratings for Vanilla Ice, MC Hammer, and Puddle of Mudd, for instance.)
As for Ashlee Simpson almost getting 4 stars, the songs themselves on that album are pretty good. “Lala” is a very solid pop song. “Pieces of Me” isn’t terrible, either. Now, I’m not an Ashlee Simpson fan by any stretch of the imagination, but there is some good songwriting and production on the album. Three and a half stars sounds absolutely fair and correct to me. It’s better than average for a pop album. Nowhere near as good as Kylie Minogue’s Fever or Body Language, and no song reaches the heights of Kelis’s sublime Milkshake but still a respectable debut. Too bad her stage persona and actual singing voice suck.
I will say this again. KISS are generally well-received by rock critics. And I will also say that allmusic is the fairest gauge of bands on the internet. And I say that as a music snob, myself.
My entire 5th grade class (Allen Elementary, 1978) was divided into two camps: those who liked KISS and those who didn’t. I was in the latter category, but what I remember is that we all had one thing in common: we all took the band completely seriously, no trace of irony at all.
So then essentially Allmusic is rating the music as a product, rather than as an actual artistic creation. The fact that Ashlee Simpson “the artist” contributed almost nothing to her own album should deduct 2.5 stars right off the bat, so I guess I’m better off sticking with snobby elitist sites like Pitchfork.
WITH makeup, please, if only because that was when they were any good. Their first 4 (studio) albums were good, after that, not so.
I had a chance to see them live a couple of years ago, but I passed. I saw them in 1976, when I was 13, on the Destroyer tour. I think the best time to see KISS was in 1976, at age 13.
Dude, it’s manufactured pop. There’s good manufactured pop and there’s bad manufactured pop. Ashlee Simpson’s album falls someplace in the middle, a little above average. There’s nothing wrong with judging the end product. I would never want to see her in concert, but the record itself is decent. Not my cup of tea, but for what it is, it’s respectable. It depends what kind of values you’re applying to the music. I feel that you’re applying a very “rockist” set of standards to pop music, and that’s not fair. Judge the final product on its own merits, not the method of execution.
No, I’m applying an “art” set of standards. I’ve done some pretty good pictures that were paint-by-number as a kid. Should they be compared to a Picasso?
And since when is writing your own music considered “rock?” There is no one outside the genre of rock who writes their own music? I heard somewhere that Shakira wrote all her own stuff.
Well then, that’s where we differ. I don’t think of pop music as high art. I don’t give two shits whether a performer writes their own songs or someone else writes it for them (Elvis being a prime example. Or look at half of Motown.) I look at pop music as craft. There are very talented individuals outside the performers themselves that are responsible for the craftsmanship of the final work. And I think they deserve to be recognized.
Sure, my preference is for original work (my favorite albums of all time being stuff like Loveless or OK Computer or Pet Sounds) but I don’t see the problem with marginal performers with a great production team behind them. Apples and oranges. There’s still a lot of talent to be recognized in a solid production team (the Neptunes, anyone?)