SOE wouldn't have been 63 without some over zealous 5/5 ratings from Rolling Stone and the like.
You're mistaken. Rolling Stone gave it a 4.5. No other publication gave it over a 4. On the flip side, there were a large number of reviews giving it two or two and a half stars. If anything, the aggregate is skewed low by these ridiculous disses.
You're right about RS - 4.5. That's what I get for using my memory. They did get some 4/5's. This is from SOE's page on Wikipedia:
Source/Rating
AnyDecentMusic? 5.8/10
Metacritic - 63/100
AllMusic - 2.5/5 stars
Consequence of Sound - C–
The Daily Telegraph - 4/5 stars
The Guardian - 4/5 stars
The Independent - 2/5 stars
Mojo - 4/5 stars
NME - 2/5 stars
Pitchfork - 5.3/10
Q - 4/5 stars
Rolling Stone - 4.5/5 stars
A Venn diagram of Bono's connections would show the more he's involved with the people at a mag, the higher the album did in reviews. NME's review of SOE has to hurt even more - not that they've been U2 fans for a while.
So I stand by my comment. Without some old school rock mags and political Bono fellow travellers giving SOE above average reviews, Metacritic would be well below 63. U2 can't be happy about the reviews.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login