|
someguydudebroman
| | | Album Rating: 1.0
fuck it gonna 1 it
| | |
slave to the bae
| | | Album Rating: 3.0
same
| | |
man i rly dont want homeboys fanbase to become like hopsins, he seems like a nice kid who deserves better
these dudes are straight dickriding though
| | |
I see your point but its definitely not a 1
| | |
"There are two reasons to rate an album different than you think it deserves.
1) The overall is higher or lower than you think it should be so you use an extreme rating to affect the average. This is stupid.
2) You've seen that other people are abusing the rating system and affecting its average dishonestly so you use a different rating to try and recalibrate it to where it would be if the other people were being honest. This is less stupid."
No this is equally stupid. Let's fight dishonesty with dishonesty and just fuck up the rating system even more. I'm gonna rate this a 1 now without having heard it to balance your inflated rating, makes sense right?
| | |
The central argument of the review is irrelevant to the point I was addressing.
Nice edit, just goes to prove what I was explaining in the above comment
| | | Album Rating: 4.0
"No this is equally stupid. Let's fight dishonesty with dishonesty and just fuck up the rating system even more. I'm gonna rate this a 1 now without having heard it to balance your inflated rating, makes sense right?"
So basically what you're saying is if 100 people rate this a 1 without having heard it, that rating it a 3.5 honestly is going to... "fix" it? That you can simply "honest" the rating even when trolls like this stupid review are dragging it in whatever direction for bad reasons?
Sadly, in this world, you can't just go "well you're being dishonest so I will be all cinnamon and gravy and my honest rating will counterbalance your trolling." If I were to rate my own album by having myself and 50 sockpuppet accounts all give it a 5, you going "well I think it's a 3 even though this guy cheated I'll just give it a 3" is still going to let me abuse the system and rocket my own album to the #1 genre status.
But it's Logic. He's got enough press and exposure that the Sputnik rating means nothing. But hey, if you want to... use ILLOGIC, then have at it. S'all good, bruh. I only gave it a slightly higher rating than I thought it deserved, but if you want to be ironically idiotic about it, then that is ALSO your right. Have fun. 
| | | Album Rating: 3.5
does anyone fucking care about sputnik ratings? its just a place to practice writing and to get solid feedback on a topic that we universally like. if anyone actually goes "well sputnik gave this album a median of 3.2 so I'm going to get it" they're the idiot not us.
shit, i'm going to say that not even just for sputnik but for music in general no one should bother reading a review and taking it as the truth. it's not like a movie where you can say "the special effects are terrible" and it's universally true (99% of the time at least), with music you can't say "these beats are good" or "this is his worst single ever" because people have different opinions.
If any of you honestly give a shit about the overall rating you're just doing it wrong.
| | | Album Rating: 4.0
LOL then what the hell are you doing here? This is a site entirely built on sharing reviews, if you don't think reviews and ratings mean anything then why are you here?
| | |
the overall rating and reviews provide a sense of what to expect when going into an album, and whether or not you should listen to it in the first place, so yes, they do mean something
| | |
"So basically what you're saying is if 100 people rate this a 1 without having heard it, that rating it a 3.5 honestly is going to... "fix" it? That you can simply "honest" the rating even when trolls like this stupid review are dragging it in whatever direction for bad reasons?"
No I'm saying it isn't your job to decide what the average rating should be and attempt to even it out. It's not like moving your 3.5 to 4 is going to fix anything anyway. Plus this doesn't even apply here since the reviewer has heard the album and decided it deserves a 1. You may not agree with his reasoning but he's entitled to rate the album what he thinks it deserves.
| | |
how about the arbitrary number an album is assigned on some random website doesn't really fucking matter lol
| | | Album Rating: 2.0
wtf are you talking about
it's the only thing that matters~
| | | Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off
Aight bruh, been busy my bad time to respond.
Matt: As much as I love to talk philosophy, I think you’re reading too much into this analogy – and that’s
my fault. My use of philosophers in this analogy assumed that you knew nothing of philosophy, and it
didn’t require you to need any outside knowledge to respond. I think I must have worded it poorly but I’ll
try to be a little more clear this time about everything. I wasn’t comparing Dot to Kant to illustrate how
inaccessible his music is, but simply to make the point that he had done some original work (CIA=Sing
About Me). This sentence: “For the sake of this example, suppose CIA is an idea that those well versed in
philosophy - specifically Kant's philosophy may be familiar with, but outside of that circle it might as
well be Greek.” Is the analogy to the world of listeners – outside of the circle of hip hop heads (who
would be familiar with SAM), most people probably wouldn’t recognize CIA (most of Logic’s fans,
incidentally).
You mentioned, in response to the example in which I am a competing philosopher who publishes an iteration
of CIA without crediting Kant, that “Philosophy revolves around minor re-adaptation (whether that be
critical, revisionary or 'applicatory')”, and while that’s a fair point (and it’s unlikely that a
competing philosopher would ever so brashly rip off Kant), that purpose of my using that example was
simply to show that IF that were to happen, it would be obviously plagiarism. I then scaled it down to the
classroom setting for a more realistic example, and I’ll try making it a little better now.
Generally, the paper prompt I’d have to write on would probably be some point of contention by a competing
philosopher on some subject to which Kant’s philosophies happen to be somehow relevant. The main point of
my paper my not even have anything to do with Kant’s philosophies or CIA – shit, we might not have even
covered Kant much in class. Nevertheless, I happen to use the idea of CIA to some degree (I might not even
use the entire idea of CIA, maybe just some of the reasoning that happens to justify it) without ever
mentioning Kant, thinking something along the lines of [i]well I’m barely talking about CIA, and I’m
paraphrasing it anyway so . As benign as my intentions are here (and they might not be so benign, maybe I
meant to do it – who cares though), I’ve still plagiarized. And I’ll still get the 0. That’s all I wanted
to use philosophy for – simply to explain an example, that’s all.
| | | Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off
You went more specific with the philosophy idea, and that’s fine, but I just never meant it to be a big
part of my analogy. Anyway, there are a few things I want to respond to more specifically from your
comment.
I could point to numerous artists who--thematically, structurally and stylistically sound similar--but that doesn't mean that the vague motifs adopted by an artist--by the admission of his FANS mind you (because its not as if Kdot actually has a problem with Logic's album)--are subject to some sort of artistic patent!
This is true, but I’m not saying that it is though. I’m not talking about plagiarism from a legal or even semantics standpoint really, but moreso as a point of pride. Pride is so important in hip hop – hence why biting is so universally chastised – so the artistic patent that Logic violates here isn’t a legal one (it might though, it’s possible he could catch some legal flak for this, although given the aversion to legal proceedings in hip hop, I doubt it), it’s an affront of a different nature. Furthermore, we don’t know yet that if Kendrick has a problem with Logic’s album. It’s very possible that we might hear a Logic diss or two on forthcoming songs/albums, or he might let it slide. He might even think that it’s okay – I don’t speak for Kendrick and I’m not trying to (despite what some readers of this review seem to want to believe), this is simply my personal critique of Logic’s album.
That brings up another thing, I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything here. I don’t want the whole world to 1 this album unless that’s how they really feel. I’m just pointing out something that I think should be noted (and surprisingly has not been noted elsewhere in reviews – that I’ve seen anyway) and expressing my opinion on it. I personally think that it’s fucked up and I take offense to it – maybe you don’t; maybe others don’t. ‘I might be all alone on this one’, and that’s fine by me. I’m just defending my position at this point, and trying to explain it to you.
Anyway, last thing:
| | | Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off
Finally, in response to this, no. Like I said previously taking a Kantian theory would only be plagiarism if you a) failed to--even briefly--mention you were using his theory for said inquiry
This is all I’m saying. The analogy I put forth was to show that Logic used Kendrick’s idea (Kantian theory) and never mentioned that he was using it. That’s all. That’s why I call it plagiarism.
Its just foolish to say Logic has added NOTHING at all to the work of his predecessors however--in your opinion--inconsequential it may be.
This doesn’t seem relevant to me. I don’t care if he adds anything to what he took, I’m just concerned with him taking it in the first place.
I know you were giving the philosophy more weight within the context of the analogy, so I’ll assume that even though it looks like you’re agreeing with me here, you probably aren’t. Anyway, I’ll await your next response before I say anything else. I do apologize, by the way, for being unclear in the last post. And despite this being a clarifying post, I’ve typed it up while multitasking pretty heavily so I apologize in advance if anything here is unclear or if I’ve only confused things further, but I hope not.
SomeGuyDude: While I appreciate the time you’ve taken to comment about this review, responding to you is pretty frustrating, because you seem to be so adamantly committed to missing the point. Asdfp277 debunked your Droog complaint instantly and yet for some reason you keep bringing it up. More importantly though, you seem to have glaringly misunderstood my review. Go back and read it. Then read it again. There is no double standard breh… Not once did I say that Logic’s album being derivative had anything to do with him plagiarizing.
You also made the argument that ‘if this was really plagiarized Kendrick would file a lawsuit’. As I mentioned earlier in this comment, hip hop, as prideful a genre as it is, wouldn’t have some bullshit like a lawsuit. The only thing that matters is your respect. A lawsuit really isn’t necessary at all here; Kendrick might diss him or someone else might or something, and that’ll probably be it.
| | | Album Rating: 1.0 | Sound Off
Last thing, some of your arguments are kind of elementary dude. E.G.:
If someone writes a paper about animal cruelty and then I also write a paper on animal cruelty, unless you can show that there are ideas SPECIFIC to your paper that I clearly stole VERBATIM, there's no plagiarism. If the two of us come up with things like "kicking puppies is bad", it doesn't matter that you say it and then I say it.
The fact that you even made this point makes me not want to respond to you because you clearly aren’t thinking things through… No shit this isn’t plagiarism, but this example isn’t analogous to my criticism of Logic. It’s analogous to you writing a song about killing people and having money, and me writing a song about killing people and having money.
If you want to actually have a discussion about the things that I said in my review and in this thread, read everything again, take more than 2 seconds to think about your arguments, and then come back – I’ll be more than happy to have it. Otherwise, take your garbage arguments and your bullshit holier-than-thou attitude and get the fuck out of my thread.
| | |
smae
edit: "of [i]well I’m ba"
| | | |
|
|
