Two thumbs up! Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert had the right idea when it came to rating movies. You only wish they could have provided the same service for records.
Their two critics system was visionary in its simplicity and soon cinema ads proudly displayed the two thumbs-up logo if it had been bestowed on a movie. It supplanted the 5-star system most critics of the time were using, later augmented by the addition of half-star ratings, effectively leading to a 1-10 system.
With two thumbs up, there were only three possible outcomes: see it, maybe yes maybe no, or skip it. That left little room for nuance and hedging your bet. Applying it to music criticism, however, is a non-starter because two thumbs up is a trademarked symbol and cannot be used in any media due to the massive Disney Corporation owning its rights. Secondly, any critic wanting to use such a rating system would need a partner, a Laurel to one’s Hardy to provide the second opinion crucial to the shtick.
The point of all this is to question the 1-10 rating system that many publications use to score album reviews with 10 being flawless to 1 awful. The problem is: Ask yourself how many times have you ever seen an album receive a 1/10, a 2/10, 3/10 or even a 4/10? Actually, the lowest rating I can remember seeing in a long time is 5/10, which is the new awful, meaning the album was about as entertaining as an ocular migraine.
There are several reasons why critics and their publications rarely if ever trot out a score from 1 to 4/10, and it’s not because every album that is released has something, anything, as Todd Rundgren sang, good about it. Sadly, there are some bereft of any redeeming musical value whatsoever as well as others with only small amounts of RDV. (I get off on making up acronyms for fake phrases.) But there are reasons for being scored higher than a particular album has any right to be.
First and foremost: The publication’s editor absolutely forbids a score under 5/10 and strongly encourages you listen to the album again, as we all know that often a second listen allows you to appreciate that the music doesn’t suck all that bad.
Second: The critic is a pawn of Vladimir Putin, who hates the genre Americana and thinks music of that style should be called Russiacana because the first band to play what was then known as country rock was Kukuruza. The band’s name in cyrillic, КукурузА, is the Russian word for corn, which is unfortunately ironic. Listen to them play the famous Russian folk song ‘Porushka Paranya,’ loosely translated as “Paranoid Porsche.”
Bering Strait featuring Natasha Borzilova has been the most successful of the Russian “redgrass” bands. Their publicity confirms they were the first band ever to play the Opry (though unaccountably “Russian” was omitted from the release).
Third: The critic has made a habit of withdrawing large sums regularly from a Cayman Islands bank account despite the fact that the penurious publication he writes for doesn’t pay its freelancers. (This is no reflection on AUK, which pays me more than I deserve.)
Okay, you’re wondering what system is being proposed to replace the old 1-10 method that’s been in place since Oscar Wilde gave one of Chopin’s ‘Nocturnes’ 4/10, concluding, “After hearing Chopin, I feel as if I had been weeping over sins that I had never committed, and mourning over tragedies that were not my own.” Another example is Sir Thomas Beecham critiquing Tchaikovsky, who was partial to conducting his own symphonies, “It’s easy. All you have to do is wiggle a stick.” And for the composer’s “Fifth Symphony,” Beecham awarded it 5/10. “Why? Because it is Peter Ilyich’s Fifth, which is one better than his Fourth.”
So, here it is. I submit that all future albums should only be rated with 1 to 5 stars or whatever alternative symbol floats your boat: icons for the evolution of mankind, guitars, phases of the moon, carrots, Monopoly avatars. Get creative but keep it clean. And please, be encouraging. Stating “The Average White Cracker Band releasing a new album is akin to a giant petrochemical plant releasing toxic substances into the water table,” lacks compassion. And you should not criticize the singer Sia by saying she should have recorded the live album with a bag over her head. (She actually did.)
Before writing a review, critics should prepare properly by making sure fresh batteries are in the headphones, a notebook and pen are handy, a non-alcoholic beverage has been poured and that they are in a room insulated from family, pets, television, Jehovah’s Witnesses, helicopters, in short, anything that makes noise including the tiny grass frogs that during mating season make sort of duck-like, cackling noises which might fool you into thinking Kamala Harris is in the backyard.
The most important rule of music reviewing is to first, casually play the album, then play it a second time while listening intently whether it is Amanda Shires and Jason Isbell singing ‘The Problem’ from the digital-only “Live at the Barn” or Paul Anka crooning ‘You’re Having My Baby’ (re-titled ‘Baby, You’re Having My Baby’) for the reissue of the pop singer’s single from 1974 (b/w ‘Bang, Bang, My Daddy Shot Me Down’). The highest priority of the critic is to remain dispassionately neutral prior to listening then pick a lane and don’t veer off the expressway to exit what your heart and head are telling you to say about the album.
Now, to explain the new and improved 5-star rating system (I’ll actually be using pandas) we will review an album due to come out next month. Quoting from the press release: “Unlinked Sausages and other Snacks” is by Pork Belly Pancake, a critically acclaimed band from the critically acclaimed town of Toad Suck, Arkansas. The title track tells the story of a thirsty road paving crew who refreshed themselves at the local tavern to the dismay of folks living nearby, who said, ‘They suck on the bottle until they swell up like toads.'” The town is located “a hop, skip and a jump away from Conway,” which is an hour from the state’s critically acclaimed capitol city of Little Rock.
5 Pandas – Superior. The absolute best of the best. A masterpiece. If your house had an altar, you would be praying this album never goes out of print in case your copy becomes damaged. A shoe-in for the year-end top ten list.
4 Pandas – An excellent record. Among the year’s best but only in the top ten if there are not enough 5-star albums. A few spots where a lyric is off or a melody could have used more variety. High replay value.
3 Pandas – Very good effort. Several highlights and better than the average release. No filler material but there are two or three tracks that you might skip over the second or third time.
2 Pandas – Fair. But it has its moments. If you are into mixtapes, there are a couple songs you would consider filing away for future use. You would not, however, play the entire album more than once. It will be ticketed for the secondhand shop.
1 Panda – Adequate to substandard. Maybe a couple okay tracks but predominantly weak and uninspiring. Clearly needs help or re-thinking the way to approach songwriting and/or playing. Don’t quit your day job.
If an artist’s record has been out for review but is found under the “also released this month” header, that is an indication the album sucked big time. As in, playing the album will scare the beejeesus out of any mice your cat has been unable to trap and dissect. If this album was a house, listeners would be hoping for termites. Use disinfectant liberally after playing.
Clearly, not everyone, be they musicians, industry pros, editors and publishers or the general public, will be pleased with the number of stars/pandas a particular album has received. As the saying goes, I would like to apologize to anyone who I have offended as well as those I have yet to offend. I’ve been swamped, but I will get to you eventually.
As a critic, you have a responsibility to be fair and forthright in your reviews, but there’s nothing wrong with adding a dollop of compassion to a stinging review as you would sprinkle sugar on tart apples. But the fact is all criticism is not created equally, and it never will be until reviews are written with AI. There are those who think that would be preferable to human critics who write like they’re some Mistra Know-it-alls.
Even with guidelines for scoring a reviewed album, it gets tricky simply because some critics are harder to please than others. In 2023, my best of list had only six albums that scored 10/10, and I regularly listen to a ton of new music. There’s no right or wrong to a subjective opinion. Some, like the curmudgeon behind the keyboard here, aren’t so liberal doling out high marks. Maybe grading on a curve should be considered to achieve the desired distribution of scores. Either that, or just go with thumbs up or down. No more 1-10/10 or 1-5 stars/pandas. The album is either good enough to have a place in my collection or it isn’t.
Once again, let’s turn to Oscar Wilde for wisdom, which is relevant to both musicians and music critics. “Be yourself. Everybody else has already been taken.”
