Metal Reviews

You're welcome to comment on:


Click here to see the review.

Thanks for the review. I will definitely check this out.

I've never considered Sanctuary thrash metal. I'm sorry but, that kind of ruined the review for me, I question your credibility...
But I'll check it out nonetheless, although I didn't like Nevermore's final (?) album.

This is more or less the lost Nevermore album from the glossy production, to the dismal lyrics, to the chug riffs. There is no Sanctuary on this even faster tracks like Frozen/Arise and Purify are given the modern treatment, and the riffs just lack any imagination compared to past tracks from the band. Its not unlistenable but its very shallow and nowhere even in the same league as Refuge denied, and even the faster tracks off of Into the mirror are better than this.

The magic is gone

6/10

Agreed with you Frenchman on Nevermore's final, uninspired album, and based on Nickelback's review it sounds like another mediocre continuation of Nevermore.

So, I sampled it. I'm not used to say this but Steve's right, this is uninspired, borderline boring. I don't even get why Dane didn't call it a Nevermore album, maybe for shame of staining even more what once was a good name. Well, Sanctuary's alsp was a good name, no more. The Year Sanctuary Died is 2014 and Warrel Dane's to blame.
45/100

What a huge disappointment. Expected a better effort from these guys, Lenny Rutledge especially. The riffs/leads from the band's first two records had such great texture and power that it's just a shock to hear how bland and uninspired they are here. Will definitely beg the question of how important Sean Blosl was to the band. The slick, modern production doesn't do them any favors either. Steve said it perfectly. The magic is gone.

So how can three forumites with a great deal of experience listening to this type of metal be so unified in calling this album mediocre when the reviewer seemed to love it?

Joel: response?

A reviewer has the right to his/her opinion and should not be made to feel wrong or inferior for it. Music is subjective as it effects each person differently therefore why would Joel's opinion be called into question? If you don't like the album then voice your opinion and let it go. This is yet another reason why I don't frequent here much anymore.

It's not so much to make him feel bad or inferior as to engage a debate with someone of a different opinion. I miss the times when reviewers took an active part in the forum thus making it a far more pleasant place to chat about metal.
But I agree the way North put it is confusingly condescending.

I just wanted to see if he'd respond, I don't see a problem with that, since you know, discussion is so lacking on the forum anyway.

Frenchman: amusing of you to call what I wrote condescending when you opened this review discussion with "I question your credibility".

Hey Raven, I don't like guys getting slammed for having different opinions either. But I think NFH had a valid question for Joel here since no one found the record to be up to the same level as he did. It would surely be a worthwhile conversation with there being such disparate viewpoints.

[quote="The Annoying Frenchman"]I've never considered Sanctuary thrash metal. I'm sorry but, that kind of ruined the review for me, I question your credibility...[/quote]

I wouldn't say Joel is totally off base with the thrash labeling. Sanctuary is not a straight thrash band but there is most definitely a progressive, Heathen-esque quality to their material.

[quote="North From Here"]I just wanted to see if he'd respond, I don't see a problem with that, since you know, discussion is so lacking on the forum anyway.

Frenchman: amusing of you to call what I wrote condescending when you opened this review discussion with "I question your credibility".[/quote]
Since when stating a point is condescending? Provocative at most as I wanted him to respond.
I'm still waiting...

Does Joel even have a forum account? Demanding a response is a bit...

Gave this a listen earlier. Sounds like Nevermore to me, I'd give it a low 70s score, it's neither as good nor as bad as some are saying.

Not bad, just totally uninspired. And, as you pointed out, lying on its content as it sounds exactly like Nevermore, not like Sanctuary.
I stand by my 45, it's a below average album.

The ability is still there, but this new album doesn't reach the standard of old Sanctuary in my opinion. There was such a bold, razor sharp edge to their early material. The fusion of killer riffage and epic, sweeping lead interplay that was the band's trademark now sounds formulaic and watered down. The modern production only fuels the Nevermore comparisons and, to be honest, makes them sound like a dozen other bands playing the same power/prog style. It's really not a bad record, but it just doesn't hold my attention but for a few tracks. I would put this around a 68/100.

"Since when stating a point is condescending? Provocative at most as I wanted him to respond.
I'm still waiting..."

Right, well, my intentions weren't to be condescending either. I was just struck by the difference of opinions between you, Thrash, and Steve with his and thought it merited mention. Zad's point about him not having a forum account is noted however.

Have not listened to this yet. I mean to. But after reading through the thread I'm assuming the majority of everyone else's experience kind of went like this? XD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H8XqA7WyLI

It sounds like a continuation of where Nevermore left off. Overall the songs definitely don't grab you like they did on The Obsidian Conspiracy (the hate of which I can't understand from some of the comments here as I thought it was a killer album) but it's definitely not rubbish. I'd give it a score of 75.