From a web designer's point of view they did actually get things right, but most of them, because of laziness or back engine restrictions, they definitely got wrong:
a) They removed some of the heavy table structures they used to have (good).
b) They use some tables that are completely unnecessary and take away the speed they gained by removing tables in a) (bad)
c) On sub pages (discography) we suddenly have table monsters again. Those are enough to give you the shivers. No idea why they did that. Loading times skyrocket because of that. (very bad)
c) Their CMS, whatever they are using (too lazy to check) is just too slow, or the server(s) they host their SQL databases on just can't handle the tremendous amount of traffic they seem to be having. (confusing and stupid)
d) They only did cosmetic work. Nothing was done in regard to fact checking, etc. (sucks).
good + bad + very bad + confusing/stupid + sucks = waste of time
I haven't used the site more than once a month, perhaps, and am reducing even that. Maybe that's what they wanted all along ... reducing the page hit count? Who knows. These sites (= the management) work in mysterious ways.