Moonspell Memorial
» Back to review

Comments:Add a Comment 
Crysis
Emeritus
February 3rd 2008


17626 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0

^



/agree

beans
February 3rd 2008


2328 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

constructive criticism is the biggest part of this site

ive gotten used to it so you should do the same

Vanwarp
February 3rd 2008


86 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

Thank you all for the constructive criticism. Great to see the interest in my writing and your comments are welcome...



Crisis,



“To be honest, this isn't nearly descriptive enough to give a picture of what this album sounds like to someone who has never heard it.”



Really? To be honest here, I hope you don't presume to know what the masses think? OK, I can accept the fact that YOU and others who enjoy reading lengthy descriptive detailed reviews might not find my short review descriptive enough. But, as long as we are being honest, I would be willing to bet that the readers of lengthy detailed reviews at this site are probably less than 20% while the remaining 80% never read through a lengthy review preferring the shorter informative ones. With my short informative reviews, I'm simply trying to reach the category of readers that never actually read through a one or two thousand word review. I'd be willing to bet that many of those people would find my review interesting enough to maybe check out the album in question? At least that's what I hope...



So, my reviews are not met to appease the writers of lengthy reviews but rater, are directed at the readers who perhaps prefer the short, concise, informative reviews that don't necessarily reveal all about the album. Is this approach not helpful to those readers with short attention spans or whatever their individual preferences might be in regards to; how much detail is included in a review and/or with the “correct” length of any given review?



Just wondering if lengthy detailed descriptive reviews is really what everybody wants and actually is the answer to the needs of everyone?This Message Edited On 02.03.08

Crysis
Emeritus
February 3rd 2008


17626 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0

Fair enough, that's your point of view and I'm not here to argue. I would say, though, that I love to read really long reviews when I'm looking into an album.

Confessed2005
February 3rd 2008


5569 Comments


I wish it didn't take me so long to get into gothic/black metal all the time. It just seems to take forever before some things grow on me and such.

Wizard
February 3rd 2008


20510 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

I would be willing to bet that the readers of lengthy detailed reviews at this site are probably less than 20% while the remaining 80% never read through a lengthy review preferring the shorter informative ones.


You back yourself up well. I have to admit that I think my last comment may have stemmed out of selfishness. I enjoy reading long, detailed reviews but you bring up a good point about a majority liking the shorter, more concise reviews. Cheers!

Commortus
February 3rd 2008


237 Comments


Unless the reviewer is extremely good, long reviews end up wasting space. Short reviews that give a general overview of the album and outline the positives and negatives are almost always better to read (in my opinion, anyway).

BallsToTheWall
March 19th 2009


51218 Comments


Good album is great.

Hawks
March 19th 2009


87629 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

Agreed.

fireaboveicebelow
March 19th 2009


6835 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

this grew on me recently

Willie
Moderator
March 19th 2009


20212 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

This was a good album, especially considering the huge jump (IMO, I know I know) from the albums before it. I only wish the instrumentals were fewer or they integrated them better because they build a cool atmosphere, but then they're just tossed aside.

fireaboveicebelow
March 19th 2009


6835 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

it would've been cool if the instrumentals were, like you said I suppose, implemented into the aura of the actual song, as if it went like part 1 and part 2

Willie
Moderator
March 19th 2009


20212 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

Yeah, exactly if they were a part 1 and 2 and implemented into the actual song I think they'd have a higher overall fan opinion of this album.

Wizard
June 24th 2009


20510 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

Album has some really great moments (melody wise) but as fire and Willie have stated, those instrumentals feel out of place.

Willie
Moderator
June 24th 2009


20212 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

The album after this one fixed that problem.

Wizard
June 24th 2009


20510 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

I couldn't agree more. I wish they would do more stuff like The Antidote though. That album just has so many powerful tracks to it ("Everything Invaded"). Might do a 4.5/5 review for that album, near perfect to these ears.

Willie
Moderator
June 24th 2009


20212 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

Before I made staff The Antidote was on my list of albums to review... it wouldn't have received a 4.5 ;)

Wizard
June 24th 2009


20510 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

What can I say, I'm so gay for those moments of manly whispering and quieter moments on the album hahaha.

Willie
Moderator
June 24th 2009


20212 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

I'm so gay for those moments of manly whispering
lol, You couldn't have put it any better with songs like "In and Above Men" sounding like the soundtrack to a rousing game of butt-darts.

Wizard
June 24th 2009


20510 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

My ex-girlfriend pretty much said the same thing to me hahahaha.



Karl: "You will like this honey"



Kate: "Really, then why does this guy sound like he wants to get all creepy kinky with your bum?"



Manly whispering ftw. Balls should be proud of me now hahaha.



You have to be logged in to post a comment. Login | Create a Profile





STAFF & CONTRIBUTORS // CONTACT US

Bands: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Site Copyright 2005-2023 Sputnikmusic.com
All Album Reviews Displayed With Permission of Authors | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy