Just to be clear, I actually like the new Springsteen album quite a bit. After picking up my copy of High Hopes, I promptly listened to it three times, and plan to give it many more spins in the ensuing week. But when I heard RS had raved about the album, it had no effect on my desire to buy the album whatsoever. After giving Springsteen so many positive reviews, their critiques of his work have no authority anymore. The rave write-ups seem like rubber stamps, and they're becoming easier and easier to tune out. While I thoroughly disagreed with Pitchfork's trashing of the album, I felt assured that it represented the writer's true opinions. I no longer have the same confidence when reading a Rolling Stone review of a Springsteen album.
Now, the obvious retort to this is "but what if the RS reviewers genuinely liked all of those albums?" Hey look, I'm a pretty big Springsteen fanboy, and in general, my thoughts on his albums aren't too far off from what the RS reviewer (usually David Fricke) has to say. The only review I thought they were way off on was 2009's Working On A Dream, which was inexplicably given five stars when it's probably a 3.5 star album, 4 if I'm feeling extremely generous.
The problem is, Springsteen is the only artist who is put on a pedestal like this. usually, its generally impossible to get a five star review in RS (their top two albums of 2013, Vampire Weekend's Modern Vampires Of The City and Kanye West's Yeezus, both received 4.5 stars), and yet four of Springsteen's last six albums of original material have received five stars, while the other two were awarded 4.5. Springsteen is the only artist who is treated this kindly - even Bob Dylan, who also often receives excessive praise from RS, was given a mere 4 stars for 2009's Together Through Life. Even if they were still praising Dylan, they were at least willing to, you know, criticize him a little bit. They haven't done that with Springsteen since Human Touch and Lucky Town.
Even if David Fricke and the RS crew genuinely do love every late-period Springsteen release, it's hard not to have a bad taste in your mouth when you remember that they're never this generous with younger artists. Why not give Vampire Weekend's excellent album that extra star? Or why not bestow the honor upon a breakout record like Frank Ocean's Channel Orange or Kendrick Lamar's good kid, M.A.A.D. City? If you're going to have a five-star review, why only make it attainable for artists over 60? I mean, think of how meaningless The Source's XXL rating would become if they only gave it to veterans like Jay-Z and Nas. Often times, the five-star Springsteen review doesn't ring true. It feels like a lifetime achievement award (or six lifetime achievement awards), rather than a genuine assessment of his work. There seems to be this idea that the younger bands have to "earn" that coveted five-star mark, but the fact is, they're earning it with the work they're doing now, and giving them obligatory five-star reviews for lesser works they make later on will only start the cycle again.
I'm a huge fan of Springsteen's music, and I think his late-period work is quite good, but when a magazine goes through six straight albums of a given artist without offering any negative critique whatsoever, it's hard to take them seriously. The propping up of old dudes while being stingy with stars for younger artists exacerbates the problem. When there's a new Springsteen album, I know Rolling Stone will give it either 4.5 or 5 stars, regardless of whether it actually deserves it. On the other hand, if a younger artist is getting talked up by blogs, and reaching on Best New Music status on Pitchfork, I know RS will give them an obligatory 3.5 star review, just to let us know they're aware of all that Young People Music. Even as one of The Boss's biggest fans, Rolling Stone's act is getting predictable, and for a magazine that desperately wants to remain relevant, their credibility is fading fast.
.
