Last week, Pearl Jam released their first new album in four years, and the response largely fell into two categories:

1. Hey, Pearl Jam are a classic rock band now!
2. Hey, they might be the last classic rock band!

This back and forth makes for solid think-piece fodder (what is classic rock anyway, maaaaaan?), but when it came to the reviews, the responses were fairly predictable. Basically, popular music criticism outlets reacted to a 2013 Pearl Jam album the exact way you'd expect them to react.

Take Pitchfork, who gave it a 5.0, and mostly complained how it didn't break any ground, and just seemed like a "comfortable" record. To which I would respond, what the fuck do you expect? They've been around for 20 years, and they aren't The Flaming Lips, so a bit of a rut is to be expected. Unless you want every album to be experimental like No Code, why not just enjoy a meat-and-potatoes Pearl Jam album?

Because they're Pitchfork, that's fucking why. They didn't get to where they are now by handing out "Best New Music" stamps to Pearl Jam albums. Even though Pitchfork hasn't been "indie" in quite some time (my mom even knows about them), they still like to cling to that little bit of credability. So whenever a dinosaur-ish act like Pearl Jam puts out a new album, they make an art out of saying "meh." But this is ultimately unnecessary; we all know what Pitchfork thinks of the new work of bands like Pearl Jam, and they'd be saying more by not reviewing the album at all.

But hey, I still got a little more out of that than I did from Rolling Stone's review. Huge surprise: they gave it 3 and a half stars. You know what else Rolling Stone gave 3 and a half stars to? Here's a brief list:

The sun
The moon
The heavens
The earth
The stars
The meaning of life
Monty Python's The Meaning Of Life
Thad Lewis
EJ Manuel
Doug Flutie
The 2013-14 Buffalo Sabres'
The recorded crying of Blue Ivy Carter from 3:14 A.M. to 4:49 A.M.on August 23, 2012 (note: Jay-Z eventually got her to go to sleep by singing a lullaby version of "Song Cry." Rolling Stone gave it 3 and a half stars)

Honestly, music criticism from the major outlets has gotten so predictable - with regard to already-established artists at least - that there's little point in even reading them. One great moment of honesty from a Rock Critic came when Steven Hyden wrote his "Winner's History Of Rock 'N Roll" piece on Linkin Park for Grantland. He's not a huge fan, but he kind of admits that their last few records weren't bad (they actually weren't, seriously). But then, he basically says that there was pretty much no way he'd ever say anything all that positive about Linkin Park. I mean, he's got a reputation to protect. It was the rare moment that a critic ever-so-subtly admitted that a band's reputation might effect what that critic thinks and says about them. I respected his candor quite a bit.

I'd like to see music reviewers - especially ones who write for Pitchfork and Rolling Stone - branch out a bit. Give a 10.0 to someone who isn't Kanye, or a 5/5 to someone who isn't Springsteen. We'll all be better off for it. If not, I may have to do to the next Rolling Stone what Eddie Vedder did back in '06: