TOBY
Group: Members
Posts: 1562
Joined: May 2002 |
|
Posted: Jan. 18 2008, 04:07 |
|
Quote (Ugo @ Jan. 17 2008, 16:33) | Sorry for the off-topic... I don't really want to comment on the site's MotS update, but I've been browsing through the Discography section of MO.com and I noticed various signs of carelessness. Among others: none of the compilations is mentioned, various durations are wrong [and Amarok's duration isn't even there!!], 'On Horseback' is not mentioned on Ommadawn [OK, it wasn't even on the original cover, but the CD says "Part Two including On Horseback"... ] and the Platinum tracklist still has 'Sally' in it [whose stated duration, 5:00, does not correspond either to 'Sally' or 'Into Wonderland']. So, is this just Fanny (?) being careless or is it the n-th example of an artist's unofficial website being much, much better taken care of than the so-called 'official' site? |
I think its the latter. You've got to remember the budgets for maintaining these websites is quite often tiny (I bet control of MO.com has been handed over to someone at Universal) I'm quite active over at the Chemical Brothers website and they had to seriously fight their record company last year to get them to lift a finger and put up the funds to get their website a much needed overhaul, and they're a huge international act! So its not surprising that most fansites are run with far greater effort , people are doing it for the love of it and for no money. As to the dicography. To be fair Ugo most acts don't include compilations in their dicographies, unless they're being very pedantic. Its usually just studio releases.
|