Dude the fact that you gave arguably one of the best hip hop records of the year a 5/10 is just disrespectful. Just because he raps about things you can't associate with doesn't mean you have to hate on it. Ya, I don't have a Picasso or any clothes from Tom Ford, but fuck, I would love to! Peronally it gives me motivation to work harder in life to eventually achieve those grandiose things he raps about.
Hey man, I read the review and Jake didn't bash it or Jay Z at all. He simply didn't like the album. I thought it was well written and the review left it open for people to go listen and see for themselves which is what a review should do.
You should read the J Cole review, that's a review where there's bashing. The good thing about this review is he gives his opinion on the songs and it's your job to listen and see if you agree- which some of the people on here did/didn't. Nothing offensive at all and it's a rather helpful review.
Good Review Jake
I bashed the album because it was bad. You can disagree but you never offered any substantive reason why I was wrong - you just kept repeating that I was being unfair and biased against J. Cole because he's homophobic. The point was to use those lyrics as an illustration of what goes wrong on the record, the shortcomings that Cole so obviously has. You picked that out because you don't think there's anything wrong with using ****** because you're a homophobic, racist sack of shit.
That would imply that the review is readable enough to reach the endâ€¦.
If you have a problem with our content, dont read it. But then dont have some bullshit complaint about the score and the review itself. You read the review, you complained about it. You just ended up being too stupid to grasp what the score was.
You had to scroll past it to post a comment. Its in a big red font. Cant miss it.
I agree with everything you said about scoring reviews, but regardless, you still score them. Editorial guidelines are things that sites use to help create consistency among reviews and scores, if everyone just does it how they feel like doing it, then your site loses cohesiveness, which is not good. It becomes less about your site and brand, Absolutepunk, and more about the individual reviewer, which isnt a good thing. I don't care about what Joe Blow thinks of the new Daft Punk record if he has no credibility or credentials, but I should care what Absolutpunk thinks, if it's a reliable and consistent website.
everyone formats their reviews the exact same way idiot
Oh yeah, that's why we get 500 word reviews for certain records and then novels for others.
lol christ that isnt formatting. we arent going to institute a cap or floor for review lengths. some records inspire more than others. different records elicit different responses, and every reviewer has their own style. next youre going to demand we all draw from a set wordbank for our reviews.
If you dont have a cap then you leave no room for editing. Is it so hard to not put down every thought or condense your thoughts? That's what good writers do.
Good writers write what they feel. Theres a common sense limit - no one wants to write, or read, a 4000 word review of the new Metro Station record. If we wrote down every thought we had, we'd end up writing hundreds of words about every track. Please, stop embarrassing yourself. Literally every review site has variation in length of reviews. It's absurd to suggest a strict limit one way or the other.
No, it's really not. I'd say 90% of paying websites make word count apart of their editorial guidelines. Don't act like I'm suggesting you sacrifice your first born.
Considering the way that Pitchfork, the Quietus, AVClub review lengths all vary - you're wrong. You're also moving the discussion away from what was important, which was your inability to understand that length isn't formatting, and that the score is in the review.
Again, no one is going to vomit thousands of words, most of our reviews probably end up in the 750 to 1250 range just because of natural habit. You're greatly exaggerating the perceived "problem"
They may vary, but I assure you, there's a window that you must fit inside.
You might be incompetent enough to need someone to tell you what you have to meet, but for the most part, other people don't. They naturally feel the guidelines and write according to them - but not religiously, because strict adherence to rules kills creativity.
Length is very much so formatting, take a journalism class.
Thankfully, journalism is dead and allt hat really matters is English. You'd be wrong in that class. Formatting, particularly in web content, deals in the font, coloring, organization, etc. Not length.
If the score is in the review, then why fill in any number on the left hand side where it does the aggregate breakdown? And making the excuse that the site is under renovation isn't good enough. Shouldn't a website always be under renovation? Don't advertise what you're not selling.
Because that's how the site was built eight years ago. There is no option to leave it blank, otherwise we all would. The website is under renovation and there is tons of background activity and information you're not privy too, so you should be quiet.
There are plenty of reviews FULL of word vomit. This guy throws in "he's married to Beyonce" in his first paragraph!
That's not what word vomit is, or how I was using it. Please shut up.
Journalism is far from dead, it's just changing. AP Style is law. And once again, you're wrong.
Sorry if I call bullshit on your outdated system that you dont use yet still feature on your site. Clearly I'm the idiot!
I'd consider word vomit anything that isn't necessary in the critique of an album or to the thesis of the argument. But there are no rules on what word vomit is, "because strict adherence to rules kills creativity." Fucking gag me.
Shrug. It's a cliche for a reason. Nothing is more obnoxious than being forced to fluff up your writing or cut yourself short. That applies in music criticism as well as academia.
No, journalism as we know it is dead. Traditional structures are dead or dying, and they're the sources of the styles and rules you're clinging so desperately to.
I'd like to see any English professor that includes length under "format" and not the assignment itself. Generally, when I receive an assignment, "format" refers to margins, font, type size, citation style.
Shrug. It isn't bullshit. You're just too stupid to grasp the very clear intent of the "averaging" system and the grade at the bottom of the review. Very, very few people have your problem, and this has been the system for over a year. I think you're the problem, not vice versa.
Your dogmatic belief in the cutting of "unnecessary" words and phrases is cute, but ultimately irrelevant. This isn't an academic paper, nor is it detailing something objective and concrete. Background information, particularly when you later talk about the songs which involve his wife and child, is necessary. You're objectively wrong on that count. On top of that, because music is art, nailing any discussion or criticism of it to a set of rules about what you can talk about within that criticism is ridiculous. You could review an album and not once mention the music if you chose. Writing is itself an artform, even when critiquing other forms. You don't get to decree that your rules are the only ones that matter.
Well good for you and your professors. I'm not talking assignments, I'm talking articles and reviews. Editorial guidelines are apart of formatting. Semantics.
Relying on name calling, yet again. Your system is clearly broken, you have abandoned it all together, and yet you are fiercely defending it, for what reason?
Yeah, because I needed Jake Jenkins to point out that Jay Z is married to Beyonce, and that she's well liked by people! Your next sentence could have used some editing, confusing sentence structure there, Ryan. Editing and cohesion is something that separates a music website from a fan blog. If you'd rather be the latter, than be my guest. Got any more anger in you? I can do this all day
No one on this site is Hemmingway.
Yep. Doesn't change the fact I'm right. This is also largely irrelevant to the point that you failed to make in the beginning.
Doesn't change the fact, again, that you are very much in the minority. I'm only defending the system because you made it out to be some sort of ridiculous, confusing system that it clearly isn't. When we corrected your ill-informed view on the percentage ratings, you took it someplace else entirely. You've proven yourself to be totally out of touch with the way this site works, yet continue to defend your positions about things you know nothing about. You talk about visiting other sites: I encourage you to continue to do so, because no one is enjoying your obsession with scores, which are universally derided by every reviewer on this site or elsewhere as being cheap shortcuts that enable laziness on the part of the readers.
You might not realize this, but there's all sorts of "unnecessary" information in reviews that would be considered common knowledge, on almost every review site in existence. You are not supposed to assume the reader is familiar with the topic.
Your next sentence could have used some editing, confusing sentence structure there, Ryan. Editing and cohesion is something that separates a music website from a fan blog. If you'd rather be the latter, than be my guest.