It’s an arbitrary thing, ratings…but occasionally their subjectivity collapses to the naked singularity of the completely laughable. What sort of baseline are pop critics working from when another less than stellar U2 record fetches a five star rating from Rolling Stone and four out of five stars in the recent issue of MOJO? Love, loathe it or be bathed in utter indifference, are consumers really supposed to buy into the notion that along with records like Revolver, , and London Calling, room now needs to be made on that roster for No Line On The Horizon? Is there some sort of implied 21st century context that we’re all now subject to that obviates the benchmarks of the past?
Yeah…sorry Chauncey, it all smells of an editorial stance that trying very hard not to offend. I’m all about giving U2 props when stumble on a decent riff (“Vertigo”), but the thin “swagger” and faux Dylan-esque delivery of “Get On Your Boots” ?!? That’s one star gone already.
I’m much more up for seeing the scale stretched out to something more realistic and less constricting. What’s wrong the ol’ 1 to 10, with the brazen freedom to employ a decimal point when necessary? Or perhaps we could go the route and compile percentages based on a simple yay or nay? Either way, what passes now as record rating is far closer to useless than it’s ever been.