Do they? Loads of albums I've seen, they've given a crap score to.
Really good albums as well, Rolling Stone seem shit but I pay very little attention to stuff like that. But they don't seem to hand out 5 stars all the time.

his new album is awesome and is definitely one of the best releases of the year

That's supposed to be a good thing? The Rolling Stones have no idea on what good music is.

It's surprising, more than anything.
They have given 3/5 and 3.5/5 for really great albums and I've never really seen them give a 5/5 for an album that's not The Velvet Underground & Nico, or other obvious greats.
I expect it to be quite average, but we'll see.
I've grown to dislike Rolling Stone more than Pitchfork in recent times.

Rolling Stone will give a mediocre score to something that turns out to be groundbreaking and recieve critical praise and then they'll bump it to five stars and include it on their 500 Greatest Albums List.

Pitchfork just wants attention so they'll give any popular album or anything by a big-name artist a piss-poor review just because.

In conclusion, they're both hopelessly ignorant music journals that everyone (fake hipsters and fun-loving 20 somethings aside) sorta know are a big joke.

In the Aeroplane over the Sea, Pitchfork AND Rolling Stone did it.
Allmusic seem to be okay, whenever I've seen them rate an album it's usually pretty on the money.

They're the only ones I seem to agree with a majority of the time (of course it's not like it's their job to agree with me). They write pretty informative reviews and are usually very sincere. The only thing that bugs me is they'll sometimes rave about an album in the actual review and then give it like 2.5 or 3 stars out of 5... what's up with that?

kanyes new album is really really good so we should probably talk about that instead of how every music journalists sucks.

One could say we pulled a... Kayne... on this thread.

alright that was pretty damn funny. touche