official websites suck. music-wise, that is.
and not everyone's. i've found huge, established bands have shitty-ass websites, with most of their info yanked from other sites. (i'm sure a lot of us remember u2.com catching flak from swiping their lyrics from fan sites, including the ???'s people would put for the bongolese or whatever.)
there are three categories of music websites:
- the acts who are underground, indie, whatever. they're not hugely successful, but established enough to have their own domain, etc.
- the acts who used to be underground when their site was opened, or something along the lines of this, but are now gaining popularity.
- the acts who have been popular for years, and have just now started creating websites as of late.
group 1, i've only run across john taylor's website. i know many have heard of him, but him as a solo act isn't hugely successful. he only sells his stuff online, so how can he be? the people in group 1 tend to have loads of cool content, some even offering mp3s of their stuff. you'd never see this on some huge band's site. sometimes, they'll even hold contests and stuff. if money's tight, it may not be something huge, but maybe like a free backstage pass or something.
group 2. these are the bands that have recently become popular after playing the circuits for years. their sites usually are a bit of group 1 and 3. they're getting more traffic than they used to, and the record company is breathing down their necks, probably pissed at them posting mp3s of rare stuff for people to download. even though the ultra-rare mp3 of them singing some cover in concert isn't available commercially, mp3s are the root of all evil and are not allowed.
group 3. everyone else. U2's website is rather lame, and took forever to finally see the light of day. you can get a flash site or an html site, both with not much to offer. the lyrics aren't even transcribed from them. you'd think they'd delve into bono's books and get some insight on the ???s many sites put in place of lyrics for something like elvis presley and america, or even offer insight on what he's saying in another time, another place. but no. they just copy and paste. even my favourite band, duran duran is lame. they got rid of their hotline to focus on the site, which is still lame. for months after the line-up changed, they were still showing pictures of the old line-up on the front page, and making no mention of it. any newbie checking out the site would be seriously confused.
at least U2's site offers a comprehensive discography. but, let's face it, most of the sites that fit into group 3 suck.
any insight, anyone?
and not everyone's. i've found huge, established bands have shitty-ass websites, with most of their info yanked from other sites. (i'm sure a lot of us remember u2.com catching flak from swiping their lyrics from fan sites, including the ???'s people would put for the bongolese or whatever.)
there are three categories of music websites:
- the acts who are underground, indie, whatever. they're not hugely successful, but established enough to have their own domain, etc.
- the acts who used to be underground when their site was opened, or something along the lines of this, but are now gaining popularity.
- the acts who have been popular for years, and have just now started creating websites as of late.
group 1, i've only run across john taylor's website. i know many have heard of him, but him as a solo act isn't hugely successful. he only sells his stuff online, so how can he be? the people in group 1 tend to have loads of cool content, some even offering mp3s of their stuff. you'd never see this on some huge band's site. sometimes, they'll even hold contests and stuff. if money's tight, it may not be something huge, but maybe like a free backstage pass or something.
group 2. these are the bands that have recently become popular after playing the circuits for years. their sites usually are a bit of group 1 and 3. they're getting more traffic than they used to, and the record company is breathing down their necks, probably pissed at them posting mp3s of rare stuff for people to download. even though the ultra-rare mp3 of them singing some cover in concert isn't available commercially, mp3s are the root of all evil and are not allowed.
group 3. everyone else. U2's website is rather lame, and took forever to finally see the light of day. you can get a flash site or an html site, both with not much to offer. the lyrics aren't even transcribed from them. you'd think they'd delve into bono's books and get some insight on the ???s many sites put in place of lyrics for something like elvis presley and america, or even offer insight on what he's saying in another time, another place. but no. they just copy and paste. even my favourite band, duran duran is lame. they got rid of their hotline to focus on the site, which is still lame. for months after the line-up changed, they were still showing pictures of the old line-up on the front page, and making no mention of it. any newbie checking out the site would be seriously confused.
at least U2's site offers a comprehensive discography. but, let's face it, most of the sites that fit into group 3 suck.
any insight, anyone?
Official sites blow! 
I like PJ's site though.. cause they update the fans on news on the band often!! 
right, Poodle 
you. 
