Do all bands, managers and publicists expect every album review to be full of praise and positive marks that label it the "best album of the year"? That's the feeling I get whenever I write a review for any album that's under 80% on the ol' scorecard.
Example: Raditude. The score is hardly a representation of my feelings for Weezer or the album itself. Do people even read anymore? Skimming is all fine and dandy, but don't just glance over it, be shocked by the numerical score and come up with your assessment of what I think.
Each reviewer here spends a lot of time writing these reviews, listening to both good & horrible albums, and hoping to get a fair word out on what their opinion/critique is.
There are certainly exceptions for when a low score matches my sentiment (Bowling for Soup, Plain White T's), but why give an album high marks that doesn't deserve to be called creative, long-lasting or worthy of any true distinguishing high grades? That doesn't necessarily make the album suck, it just isn't on the same plane as album's that spend more time on themselves over making party-rock.
In my eyes, Raditude will be an album I listen to on shuffle ... Thrice will be one I listen to as a whole. See the difference? Doesn't mean I hate the album, it's just not cohesive enough to sit with anyone. Subtle differences that people seem to always fail to recognize when I write. Just... read the damn thing and try to put your own personal bias on the shelf for a few short moments and see where I'm coming from.
I stand by the assertion that the score itself means far less than what I actually write. Hopefully you can think like that from now on, too.