Negative comments on bios...

I'd agree.  I'm not a fan, but the bio should be promotive.  I try and keep my reviews as promotive as I can.  Sometimes I find the review slams to be self serving.  "Hey look at me and see what a great critic I am."  Tell me what you like and if you don't like I don't really care what you think.  If I don't like something, I find it's not worth my time to review.

True, but there might be some relevancy to tracking high and low points of a career. If worded correctly, the point can still be made. For example, you could say that "Kilroy Was Here" got panned by the critics. Thus leaving out any personal opinions.

I tend to agree with you. The biography should focus on facts. Saying an album is bad is an opinion. Saying "most fans think it is bad" is a fact, assuming it can be substantiated in some way.

That depends on how much information is available. If you are struggling to put a bio together, I would recommend staying away from any value judgments. If there is ample information to make it comprehensive, it should be composed as if from an impartial observer. Bands with longer histories have highs and lows. If a particular album is sited as having an impact, it should be related as how the general public, or media responded. Such could be the case as when discussing Yes. "Drama" did not sell as well, but was more favorably received amongst fans than "90125." "Union" was touted as a possible great return to form, but was not well received by fans or critics, nor did it sell very well. Those are all just statements of what when on. They have nothing to do with any of my feelings about any of those albums.

Zappa88 wrote: I like the idea, but I think tht saying "album X was better received than album Y" will spark some more controversy, even if it is true. I don't see a problem stating a fact that any given album's sales were down, I just don't think we should be comparing them to other albums.   Know what I'm sayin? Could just be me though.

It's not an exact science. I was just using that as an example as the right way to discuss it. Saying something like, "90125" was a sellout, or "Union" was boring, would be wrong.

^^^Obviously, you will find no argument here Teo. I've written quite a few bios. Sometimes it does take a lot of effort to be diplomatic, but it can be done. I wrote one for an artist that I didn't like at all. I found out that he copied it to use on his own site.

I agree with everything that has been said so far. A bio should be factual above all, and not express any personal opinion about an artist, as there are reviews for that purpose. Having written a few bios myself, I know it's not always easy to be detached, especially if we either love or hate the act in question - but, for the sake of the site's credibiity as well as our own, it has to be done.

Which brings me to another important issue... I am afraid many of the bios here need a major overhaul, since they are either too short, too biased, or somewhat incorrect as to the information they contain. However, I also realise this would be a monumental undertaking, and not something to be tackled lightly.

Indeed Hugues, I think the point being made is that such emphasis must be supported by facts, and not simply reflect the opinion only of the writer of the biography.

Actually, the only reason the discography is added to bio is to facilitate the adding of albums. Once the albums have been added it is effectively redundant and could be removed.

what's wrong with having discographies at the bottom of bios?  It's an easy, quick way of getting information without having to scroll all the way down.. and are often a more complete list than the actual albums added which is frequently incomplete just by the nature of how much music there is out there