I can only assume there are plenty of album of reviews out there that the writers of (or at least the publications that ran them) would like to have back. When Nirvana released Nevermind in 1991, Rolling Stone gave it just three stars, the same score they might reserve for a Candlebox reunion record. 10 years later, they would give a five star rating to Mick Jagger's Goddess In The Doorway, an album even Jagger doesn't talk about too much these days.
In these particular instances, you could chalk these questionable-in-retrospect album reviews up to name recognition. Before "Smells Like Ten Spirit" broke into the mainstream, Nirvana had a fairly small following, so no one knew what a juggernaut Nevermind would become. So, to that reviewer's ears, it likely just seemed like a decent record by a band who almost certainly would not be remembered 20 years down the line. Meanwhile, Jagger's status as a music legend could very well lead certain critics to overrate his new stuff. The idea that someone of his stature could still be turning out great records into his 60s and 70s enough that critics may convince themselves that his new stuff is top notch, when in reality, it's in the middle of the pack.
There are other reasons why albums can be underrated or overrated on their initial release, however. Sometimes, one specific factor, which, in the long run, doesn't actually matter that much, will keep a critic from liking a record. Just look at the relatively low score given to Wilco's Sky Blue Sky in 2007. This was the infamous review where the album was dubbed "dad rock" while viewed as boring in comparison to 2002's Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, which is widely considered to be Wilco's masterpiece. But even if Sky Blue Sky doesn't have quite as sterling a reputation as that record, its reputation has grown considerably in the six years since its release. Where it once might have been viewed as the bastard in the Wilco catalog, it's now fit comfortably among their several other brilliant records. The accusations that the album is boring no longer seem pertinent, and the album is rightly appreciated for it's brilliant songwriting, and excellent guitar work. Honestly, the brilliance of "Impossible Germany" alone should keep this record out of anyone's shit list.
Another record that feels better with time is The Strokes Room On Fire. Admittedly, this album wasn't exactly panned when it came out 10 years ago, as numerous publications gave it four or five stars. Still, it was dogged by one unrelenting criticism: that it sounded too similar to its predecessor. Is This It made American audiences and critics fall in love with The Strokes, and many were expecting something bold and different in album #2. But while there were a few changes to their sound, a ballad like "Under Control" would have never made it on Is This I. The common consensus was that they took the safe route. In 2013, though, this criticism feels considerably less relevant. Who cares if they followed the same formula they sued on the first record? Aren't both records still brilliant? More importantly, in the decade since Room On Fire was released, we've seen The Strokes experiment with their sound, and the results haven't always been encouraging. They've sounded more and like an 80's synth-pop band on their last two records, and the transition hasn't exactly been a smooth one. In retrospect, The Strokes might have made the right decision going the safe route for album two. They were simply going with what they know best.
So, just because an album receives excessive praise or criticism on its initial release, that doesn't mean people will always feel that way. Albums that are bashed when they come out can reveal themselves to be more rewarding with time. On the other hand, albums that are release to mountains of praise can quickly lose their luster. Basically, don't take the words of the critics as gospel, because they could be saying something completely different five years later
.
