I'm not sure where I stand on this one. In one aspect I think critics favorites are favored for good reason. If a band has shown it's ability and creativity in the past the music community should rally around that. But, on the other hand, you hope that critics don't profess blind love. But, I kind of agree that most established acts usually aren't given much leeway after a couple albums. There might be certain critics who have favorites (Pitchfork's unfailing love for Animal Collective comes to mind) but for the most part critics usually tend to be harsher on the vets.

I never did get the hype of TV on the Radio so I'll refrain from my opinions on whatever ratings they get.

One of the reasons why I like this site so much is that it introduces me to superb music I would normally miss out on had it not been for the critics. But sometimes critcs rate music that is easier to admire than to like. I admired "Return to Cookie Mountain" but I could never really get into it. "Dear Science," on the other hand, I can't get enough of. An album that strives to make experimental music popular? What's wrong with that? It's euphoric and engaging. What a rare and wonderful combination.