It has become something of a cliché that all information is tainted simply by being observed. In effect, and certainly in quantum physics, we corrupt science by observing it.
Or to put it another way, Bruce Springsteen's new album Wrecking Ball changed form the moment it was listened to. By the act of listening , it is transformed and if it is a huge hit it will be transformed again.
Which makes (in theory, obviously I disagree) all music reviewing irrelevant since we are not listening to the same thing.
I mention this so I can qualify my condemnation of Rolling Stone with some clarity.
For Rolling Stone to give Wrecking Ball, the second Springsteen album in succession, a 5 star review, goes beyond opinion, or tainted data. Even a cursory listen to the album will find some very weak songs, To claim perfection is a flat out lie by the Bible of musical criticism. Chicago Tribune gave the album a 2 1/2 star review. Say, a C+. I think it is better than that. I consider it a B+ -his best album in well over a decade. But it certainly isn't an A+. It is not an out right masterpiece. It is flawed, messy, makes mistakes, and, that word again, is tainted by the huge rift between singer and subject.
My only explanation for Rolling Stone's clearly untrue grade (the review is terrible as well) is they are doing so because of Jann Wenner's well documented friendship with Bruce Springsteen. To be precise: they are lying because the boss by word or deed, or implication, told them to.
Now, rock nyc may be the smallest website on earth but we are beholding to no one except the reader and the writer. The reader to post the truth and the writer to give them the freedom to say anything they want. My personal rule of thumb is never fuck with bands trying to make it. If I don't like their music I don't write about it. As for the U2, Springsteen's and Coldplay's, Jay-Z's, I hit them as hard as I can whenever I catch them bending.
Rolling Stone takes care of its own.
OK, a review of an album that's a blatant lie. So what? So this. Stone prints hard hitting political journalism, they interview Presidents, and they have a clearly Democratic agenda. That's OK with me. I'm an independent myself but I got no kick. Except, if they will lie about a lousy album by Springsteen, what else are they LYING about. Again: LYING. Neither the last U2, nor the last two Springsteen albums were 5 star albums. RS are not bending the truth, they are doing their masters bidding.
This isn't really a matter of opinion. It isn't even consensus drawing. Look at it this way: which Rolling Stone reader who wanted to keep his job would've panned it. When the great rock critic of all time bar none, Lester Bangs, wrote a review Wenner didn't like, he was blackballed for the rest of his life.
Bruce is Rolling Stones's black swan. If they'll say stuff they know to be untrue about one thing they are untruthful.
I would like to claim this is a sorry day for journalism, but objective journalism is dead and buried and RS join a list as long as the journals that are out there of writers not serving their readers but a different taskmaster. Rolling Stone have zero credibility. I don't believe them.