| Is it snobbish to object to the 
				star rating system by which most art forms are now graded in the 
				press? I was reading a few star-rated theatre reviews in a paper 
				this week, and when I turned to the obituaries afterwards, I 
				expected to see the lives described there given a mark out of 
				five. This will happen in the future, I guarantee, and it will 
				generate much controversy: "Did you see that Tony Blair got only 
				three stars in the Guardian?" The 
				strange thing is that this mania for marking coexists with its 
				opposite in education. My sons will often come home from their 
				junior school with certificates congratulating them on having 
				done little more than remain conscious, during some course of 
				instruction. They are praised for having "completed" a project, 
				and I always hunt fruitlessly for a line of small print 
				underneath, reading: "It was crap, however" or "It was the best 
				one in the class." The other day, my youngest son came home with 
				one of these, and I barked: "Did everyone in the class get one?" 
				"Yes," he said, shamefacedly. "Then I'm not interested," I said, 
				earning myself a sound bollocking from the wife. But the phenomenon is only natural, surely. 
				Person A always wants to know what B thinks of C, which is why I 
				am so beholden to the star ratings, especially in the field of 
				pop music, the one area of the arts that I follow quite closely. |