For Today Ekklesia
» Back to review

Comments:Add a Comment 
AggravatedYeti
December 16th 2010


7683 Comments


never ever preface a review like that. ever.

tiesthatbind
December 16th 2010


7441 Comments


Props on making the effort to review. You do have a good writing style. I haven't heard the band, but too much of this review centers on the lyrics. Given what you said about the album musically this really doesn't read as a 3, even if you do like the lyrics that much.

That said, your writing is good, I would just recommend analyzing the music more in the future, because, no offense, but it reads like you give the album a 3 because you agree with the message.

And yeah, I would change that summary if I were you.

Kimm
December 16th 2010


6316 Comments

Album Rating: 2.0 | Sound Off

What do you mean...the tagline?



It is a quote from the lead singer describing the album. How is it not appropriate to use that?

tiesthatbind
December 16th 2010


7441 Comments


A better summary would be something like "Despite effective lyrics, For Today's debut fails to arise much excitement due to the generic musicianship..." or something like that.

Gmork89
December 16th 2010


8891 Comments


Good job on your first review, try to condense your ideas a little more though. If you don't have enough ideas about an album to touch on varied topics give it some more listens and analyze it a little more, but it's still a good job. Writing is good, content could be worked on.

Kimm
December 16th 2010


6316 Comments

Album Rating: 2.0 | Sound Off

I like the quote because it shows the band's intentions and (in my mind) justifies focussing primarily on the lyrical aspect of the album.

TheStefan
December 16th 2010


1003 Comments


Kimm, you get too much hate. You are a good writer, don't worry, I bet a lot of people neg'd this because they just disagree with your opinion. Don't really change much though, the review was good and I haven't even heard this album yet

North0House
December 16th 2010


1764 Comments


Yeah, I'd say it was definitely a good review. However, I do agree with some of the comments that it reads as if you'd rate it lower than you actually did.
I'll give it a pos though, it was good.

Gmork89
December 16th 2010


8891 Comments


And the quote is pretty appropriate actually, it pretty much means they were trying to get their point across lyrically rather than musically, and this review is about the lyrics being better than the music, makes sense to me.

wyankeif1337
December 16th 2010


6739 Comments


Initial impressions (of the review):

It's much more well-written than most other 1st reviews, I can tell you spent time on this. However, as many other people are bitching about, the review does give a lot more info on the lyrics than it does on the music, and the rating doesn't fit your feeling about the music. But you're obviously a good writer: just write more about the music next time.

wyankeif1337
December 16th 2010


6739 Comments


Also, it's nice to see a Christcore band that doesn't pretend not to be one. I can dig the message here.

Emim
December 16th 2010


38475 Comments


Holy crap, people are getting a tad too butthurt in this thread.


Was a good review, I just second everything Austin (tiesthatbind) said.

Kimm
December 16th 2010


6316 Comments

Album Rating: 2.0 | Sound Off

I probably could change the rating to an "average" because what you guys are saying makes sense.



Also, I wouldn't reccommend this album to most people. It speaks to me personally, but most people wouldn't like it. I'm trying to convince everyone to buy the album. I even said in my opening paragraph that if you don't agree wih the message, you might as well forget the album.

Emim
December 16th 2010


38475 Comments


Actually the point of review is to provide information to better help the readers decide whether or not to look into it.

If the point was simply to tell people to buy something, iTunes reviews would have made me buy several hundred copies of Disturbed.

North0House
December 16th 2010


1764 Comments


"Isn't the point of a review to get to listen to something? By giving this a 3 which if you can read means "GOOD" she's saying this is okay for listening. But I don't feel compelled to listen to this at all when literally the whole review is everyone sucking off jesus."

When I read a review, I read it as in," oh cool, I might like this." Or," Ah crap, this sounds awful and I won't ever listen to it." Just because you read the review doesn't mean you have to listen to the album. If it's not your style of music, then don't worry about it. Reviews are supposed to get someone to listen to something, but that doesn't mean you have to listen to it.

TheSpirit
Emeritus
December 16th 2010


30304 Comments


it's not negative she gave it a 3

sniper
December 16th 2010


19075 Comments


This band sounds terrible.

TheSpirit
Emeritus
December 16th 2010


30304 Comments


true story

DeafMetal
December 16th 2010


8598 Comments


Andcas, your link is right on the money.

Kimm
December 16th 2010


6316 Comments

Album Rating: 2.0 | Sound Off

I think the album is a five for what it's intended for. However, it is a musical album, not a poetry book, so even if the band intended to focus predominantly on the lyrics, there should still be a higher level of musical talent demonstrated in the album.

The album is by no means awful, it just could be way better.



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