Monuments: 'Gnosis' roundtable review
Monuments' long-awaited debut album 'Gnosis' was the perfect candidate for another roundtable review. Here's yet another progressive metal album that was stuck in "production hell" for almost two years, like many others before it. But we all knew it was coming, and that means everyone will have certain expectations - especially because many of us have heard a lot of the material before, in a different incarnation.
Undoubtedly, 'Gnosis' will be picked apart, compared and judged mercilessly by the fans whose patience has finally been rewarded. There's going to be a lot of buzz about this record on the internet in the coming weeks, so we decided to help start things off by sharing our viewpoints in the form of a roundtable discussion, as we have done before for Veil Of Maya's and Meshuggah's latest offerings.
We all had a lot to say about this album, so this review is pretty long and in-depth. For easier reading, it is divided into seven sections, which cover our initial thoughts, the vocals, our overall impression, the songs, the production, the album's relevance and our verdicts, respectively.
The participants of this roundtable review are:
What is everyone's background with Monuments? Everyone here has heard Fellsilent in some form or other, so we are all acquainted with John Browne's writing style. Has everyone heard the songs with previous vocalists Neema Askari and Greg Pope, for example 'We Are The Foundation'?
Zyglrob, Clarity, Meowzer, Alex93, Klonere: Yes.
benanne: I have heard them, but I haven't listened to them much, as I tend to listen to complete albums. Although I have seen them live a couple of times as well.
What were your initial thoughts and reactions to the album after only one or two listens?
Clarity: Initially, I expected a little more from this album. I expected the new vocals to be better. I didn't expect them to deviate as much from the style in the demo, and at first I found them to be a little underwhelming, for example on 'Admit Defeat'.
Meowzer: On the first listen through, I was quite biased towards liking this album because I was a big fan of 'We Are The Foundation'. I thought it was very much in the vein of the old material by Monuments. It's techy, it's got that unique production sound, the new singer does a good job filling in for Neema and Greg. However, my opinion quickly changed.
Alex93: I was really anticipating this album, but I also found it a little underwhelming. I think I would have liked it a lot more if it had been released back in 2010. Now, I can't help but compare it to more recent releases.
benanne: After one or two listens, the main thing that struck me was that the guitars sound really good. They sound really overdriven and mechanical, kind of like Neosis's guitar sound. However, I then began to hear the old vocal lines in the back of my head. There were some moments when I thought, "Neema did something here that I liked better."
Zyglrob: Initially, the album didn't sound that fresh to me. It sounded as though they thought that, since they already had the music for the songs written, they could just stick the vocals on top. The vocals didn't sound as if much importance had been given to them.
However, my opinion also quickly changed. The new vocals really grew on me, and I think it's quite interesting how different aspects of the music stand out more with the new vocals in place. Matt Rose's voice is very different from Greg's and Neema's, and his delivery is also extremely different. I'd probably describe it as sounding like Spencer Sotelo of Periphery, but a little less "shiny": they sound a lot rawer than he does. This made different parts of the music more obvious, and I began to think, "Wow, this is actually pretty good."
Klonere: I have 'We Are The Foundation' on CD, so I've listened to it a lot, and, although it's good, I've always wanted more. Each track on 'We Are The Foundation' has its own style of production: for example, 'Memoirs' has ridiculously loud kick drums, which are very overwhelming. So I was looking forward to a more constant sound, in production terms, on the debut, and hearing the new songs.
At first, it was hard to get over the fact that Neema and Greg weren't singing, especially on 'Admit Defeat', which is the Monuments song I've listened to most. I was really impressed with the vocals on the new songs (which weren't on 'We Are The Foundation'). I thought each song had its own identity, and the song that really stuck out to me the first time was 'Degenerate'.
Artwork for the band's 2010 EP 'We Are The Foundation'.
The change in vocalist is really the elephant in the room on this album. Neema had a very recognisable vocal style, which included influences such as Mikee Goodman of SikTh, rap music and even scat singing. How do Matt's vocals compare?
Zyglrob: The vocal delivery on 'Degenerate' stuck out to me particularly. On 'We Are The Foundation', Neema and Greg clearly spent a lot of time "choreographing" the vocals and putting them in the right place. On 'Degenerate', it sounded like Matt had spent a lot of time doing a similar thing. I felt that 'Admit Defeat' was quite an underwhelming start to the album, but on 'Degenerate' I thought he stepped it up a level, and I particularly liked the big chorus, which really stuck in my head.
Klonere: I really liked the section in 'Degenerate' with the spoken vocals. The riff underneath it is so groovy: when I first heard it, I immediately thought "that's a Browne riff, I know what's going on now".
Alex93: Matt's vocals are clearly very different. I think he tries to emulate the aggression of Neema and Greg, but in a different way.
benanne: Neema's delivery was always very rhythmic, and I think that that style worked very well with the style of riffs that Browne writes. On the new songs, Matt is trying to do something similar. However, on the songs which had already been released with vocals before, Matt was unable to elaborate on what had already been recorded for legal reasons. I get the feeling that we are missing out on some really great vocal lines which would have worked really well with the music, because of that. I think that they would maybe have wanted to do something different on those songs than what ended up being on the album. On 'Admit Defeat' for example, I feel that the new vocals are less interesting than the old ones.
That said, the context in which the new vocals were written was very restricted, so that must have been quite frustrating for the band, since some of the songs were probably written with two vocalists in mind.
Klonere: In 'Admit Defeat' I like the bit at the very end, where, instead of the huge scream that we got from Neema, Matt goes way up into his falsetto range. I think this shows you what the difference will be in the vocals from the very first song, and it shows you how much he has tried to differentiate it from the old vocals. It was the one part of the vocals I knew I would get used to from the first listen.
Zyglrob: When I listen to Monuments with Neema and Greg on vocals, what comes across to me most is that the vocal lines are very intricate: there are very few moments when only one of them is singing. Also, I find both singers to be quite versatile in their style: there are times, in 'Admit Defeat', for example, where Neema is doing the half-rap half-scream thing that he did. I think it's quite an invasive style of singing: he really forces the words out of his throat and into your brain! Meanwhile, in the background, Greg is often doing clean vocals, and the fact that they often had a massive contrast in vocal performances happening at the same time worked really well.
Meowzer: I am such a sucker for harmonies like those which Greg provided, and I absolutely agree that they made the music so much more interesting. They sang very technically, and gave the whole band a very different sound compared to what Matt does. I think Matt is honestly a better singer than Neema, and I can't say much for Greg because he never really took the limelight, but I don't think he harmonises with his own lines, though this is obviously not an easy thing to do. I think he has made different parts of the instrumentals stand out more, and he has also brought a more hardcore sound to the band, mostly due to the tone of his voice and also in part due to the lyrics.
Klonere: If I could sum up the vocals in one word, it would be 'raw', although the album has lots of big choruses, and there are lots of big vocal moments. This is what separates Monuments from bands like Periphery and Ever Forthright, which are very bombastic and have something big happening all the time.
benanne: It's funny that you should choose the word 'raw', because I think that the vocals sound very processed.
Zyglrob: I would agree with that to an extent. I was watching a live video of 'Degenerate' on YouTube, and Matt didn't quite manage to hit some of the more difficult clean parts with total accuracy.
I would say that his clean vocals sound quite influenced by grunge and alt-metal; quite a 90's sound. There are times when he resembles Chris Cornell, and others where he sounds quite like Chino Moreno from Deftones. For example, in 'Regenerate' particularly I can hear quite a Chino vibe.
Klonere: Agreed, but I think he has a bit more flair than those singers because of his falsetto singing. His screams are very much in the shouty, hardcore style.
Zyglrob: Another difference I noticed with the previous vocalists' style is that they moved quite fast between parts and were quite frantic in how they delivered the lyrics, whereas Matt gives the lyrics more of a chance to sink into the listeners' head. This really appealed to me, because I like to know what a band is singing about.
The timing and tempo of the vocals also fitted really well with the overall groove of the album. It's not a fast album: it's a similar speed to Vildhjarta's music, maybe a bit faster. He paced the delivery of the words very well, and, coupled with the big choruses and very melodic style of singing, this made the lyrics and songs very memorable.
Clarity: I would disagree. When Neema and Greg were singing, even though I couldn't understand everything they were talking about, the songs were a lot more dynamic and fuller, maybe even because of the fact that I didn't understand everything. I think the new vocalist had a tough job, because he had to try and make up for the absence of a second singer, which I sometimes felt they lack. The songs are less dynamic with only one vocalist.
Who here still has a hard job displacing the old vocal lines from their minds for the songs which appeared on the previous release?
Zyglrob: On 'Admit Defeat', yes. On 'The Uncollective', no.
Alex93: 'The Uncollective' for me was better with the new vocals. I've only listened to the EP before, so I didn't have too much trouble getting used to Matt's vocals.
benanne: I mainly had trouble on 'Admit Defeat', and to a lesser extent on some of the other songs which haven't been released but which they played live, like 'Doxa' for example.
Klonere: Despite having heard all the songs that Greg and Neema wrote vocals to on YouTube, I don't have much trouble displacing the old vocals, even on 'Admit Defeat'. The end of 'Admit Defeat' with the falsetto singing sticks with me now.
The last track, 'Denial', features Spencer Sotelo of Periphery. Do you think it fits in with the rest of the album?
benanne: I thought that song sounded like it could have been on 'Periphery II'. I'm not just talking about the vocals: even the riffs sounded like something from that album.
Klonere: I agree with benanne. I think Browne said at some point that he had written some riffs with Misha Mansoor of Periphery, and that he was going to get Spencer to sing on them. Maybe he was talking about this song.
Alex93: The song starts off flamboyantly, definitely, but I think Matt sang off what Spencer did in the first verses very well.
Zyglrob: I don't think Spencer really fitted in, and Matt actually sang better than him on that track. Having Spencer start the song like that broke the rhythm of the album: this is the last song, it's something that people should remember. I thought that 'Denial' was the weakest track of the album. Having Spencer sing on it made it different, but not in a way that improved the album. It sounded like something extra that could've been dispensed with quite easily.
benanne: I think it kind of works as the last song. It sounds different from the rest of the album, so it wouldn't have made sense to put it in the middle.
Klonere: The song starts, and you think: 'Haunted Shores'. Then Spencer starts singing, and you think: 'Periphery'. Even the riffs that sound like Browne remind me of Periphery a lot. I don't know if it's the weakest track on the album, but it's definitely a strange one. I'm a huge Spencer fanboy, but I think he was misused in this song.
Meowzer: I'm a huge Spencer fanboy too, but it was strange to hear his really produced sounding vocals in this context. They sound perfect, whereas the rest of the album, including the instrumental production as well as the vocals, have a demo quality feel, and the two together just isn't right.
The current lineup, with vocalist Matt Rose in the front.
Courtesy of Patrick Häberli at ProgHippie.com.
What are your overall thoughts about the album after a couple of listens?
benanne: I think it's still growing on me. This album is going to have a hard time getting through to people, because many listeners may be prejudiced against the new vocalist, or the fact that they're listening to material that's 2 years old. I think that I'm just getting over that phase. Now, I'm at a point where I'm giving it a fair chance.
Meowzer: I agree, as hard of a time as we're giving it, it still nails music rule number one, it sounds good. It's got the Monuments feel with the production; the riffs, the instrumentals, are insanely good. There are a few points that are lacking just in technicalities and interests. I love how they weave the guitars and the bass together, and the vocals are great, I was just expecting something else, and after listening to the album 5 or 6 times already, I want the old Monuments back.
Zyglrob: I've got a sort of sentence that describes it, I think: "A suicide note to the end of the world". It sounds quite despairing in its message if you listen to the lyrics. It's also quite beautiful in the way the guitars are playing, you just can't get it out of your head sometimes, like the lead line at the end of 'Doxa', which really sticks. The chorus in 'Blue Sky Thinking', with the big cleans along with the screams, also really stayed. It sounded like a lost hope in something.
The album is called 'Gnosis', which means "secret knowledge of truth", available only to the initiated. This is descriptive of the album in a way, you have to listen to it a bit deeper to understand what they're getting at. On the face of it, you can always listen to it and think "these grooves really make me want to move, they make me want to start a pit". But then you can also hear the message that they're trying to portray with it. It offers quite a lot of windows for which to listen, and that's always a good sign for an album.
Klonere: I guess we can all agree that this album needs a few listens, at least, to get going with it.
Clarity: Yes, it definitely gets better after a few listens.
Klonere: And that's the sign of a good album, in my opinion.
What's your favourite song from the album?
Clarity: 'Denial'. At first I had a hard time differentiating between Spencer and Matt, but after a while everything fell into place. The chorus is just amazing. It stands out on the album, all the other tracks sound a bit more similar to each other.
Zyglrob: Although this is not a full-on concept album, it has to be listened to as a whole, because all the songs carry a similar message, and give a similar feel to the music. You've got stable ingredients: drums and bass working together in a really tight rhythm-section, with some nice little flourishes now and again; then you've got the groove and the guitar; you've got the ambient sections going over the top; and a couple of lead lines by Olly Steele, I think it might be him doing a solo. The solos are not overly pronounced, but they really fit well with the music. The end of 'Regenerate' had a really proggy solo. That particular solo communicates a lot of feeling, and that was really important for me while listening to the album.
Klonere: I wasn't expecting that solo at all.
Meowzer: Honestly, the whole album sounds good just because of the Browne-style riffs. It's the only thing I find unique about Monuments now, since their dual vocalist thing is out of the window.
I have to go with 'Doxa' because the grooves are interesting to me. With the other songs, I prefer the previous versions. Some of them sound too slow or too hardcore, like '97% Static'. It really sounds like a hardcore song, there's not much layering, and the vocals are way too hardcore.
Zyglrob: I disagree quite strongly with that. There are sections when he really breaks it down without the singing, and you hear some of the nuances of Browne's writing style coming through.
Klonere: I think '97% Static' has my favourite chorus, it's so big.
Alex93: My favourite is probably 'The Uncollective', because I'm more familiar with it and I think they pulled off that song pretty well on the album. 'Blue Sky Thinking' also has some amazing cleans.
benanne: I'm going with 'Doxa'. It's been my favourite Monuments song ever since they first played it live, and I think it's one of the songs that came out of the transition to the new vocalist very well. The new vocal lines are really fitting.
Zyglrob: My favourite song is 'Degenerate'. It has moments which are quite profound, like this small breakdown - well it's not a breakdown - but sort of a breathing space in the music, if you will, where you just have the drums, the bass and the guitar. I think things like that separate Monuments from bands like Periphery, for example, because it gives you time to dwell on the music and prepare yourself for what's coming next. Sometimes djent bands don't allow you that opportunity, it's just constant crush and chug, but I think that small things like that really make a difference.
Klonere: My favourite song would have to be 'Regenerate', mainly because of the opening. Back when I really got into djent in general, my favourite album was Uneven Structure's '8', because it was just groove all the way through. 'Regenerate' has that classic kind of djent: klinky-klonky guitars and that huge groovy riff at the start that is still stuck in my head right now.
What song do you think doesn't work or which is your least favourite?
Clarity: I don't have one.
Meowzer: I think the whole album does a good job at keeping the quality at the same level, it's not perfect but it still sounds good. Each song sounds good in its own way. There's kind of a small downward slope throughout the album, so I think 'Denial' is the least interesting.
Alex93: Probably 'Admit Defeat'. That track is definitely amazing, but I thought their new take on it was a bit lacking.
Klonere: I think it's because it's the one song that emphasized Neema's style.
benanne: It's the album opener, and it also happens to be the song that everybody knows with Neema. This makes it very obvious from the start that this album is going to be quite different.
I wouldn't say I have a least favourite song. I'd agree with Meowzer that the album is really consistent, there's no filler on it. If I really had to pick a least favourite song I'd say 'Blue Sky Thinking', because it was the least memorable song for me.
Klonere: Besides being consistent, the album is mercifully short. There are a lot of djent albums that are really long and they tend to kind of drag on toward the end.
benanne: That's a big issue I have with Periphery's albums, I love their music but at some point it just gets too tiring for me to finish listening and actually enjoy it. A lot of bands are making these long albums now, like Ever Forthright, and Stealing Axion's upcoming debut. Without 'Memoirs', which unfortunately disappeared from the track listing at the last minute, the album is just over 40 minutes long, and it's about the perfect length.
Let's talk about the album's production.
Meowzer: I like the production because it fits well. Monuments' big thing is Browne's raw demo-quality production. It's highly processed obviously, it's got a lot of compression, but it's rough, not super clear. It's grungy.
Klonere: As Meowzer said, it's demo-y, but it's also professional and listenable. I thought that the bass could be a bit more present. If I listen with my headphones it's nice and present but on speakers it's not really there.
Zyglrob: The bass tone is really good. I think it sounds nice and fresh, and twangy, like bass should sound. As for the demo-quality production, I think it sort of reflects the attitude of this band, a bit of an 'underdog' thing. Everyone who's into djent has heard of Periphery, TesseracT and Vildhjarta. But maybe people have started forgetting about Monuments a bit and I think that sort of epitomises how they sound.
Klonere: In the djent scene, production is such a big thing; it often takes precedence over the music. Whereas with Monuments it's kind of in the background, it's more about the big riffs. They don't like having a super slick well-produced sound.
Zyglrob: Maybe Browne doesn't want to have an Axe-FX, he's happy with something that is not what everyone's talking about. But he'll make it sound great, and that's what really speaks to me about his production style.
Alex93: A lot of bands nowadays like to get a good piece of equipment and then record whatever, they don't take the time to practice their craft. That's definitely not the case here.
Clarity: I don't usually care about the production and don't pay much attention to it, unless it's really terrible. There's nothing wrong with it on this album.
Courtesy of Patrick Häberli at ProgHippie.com.
Klonere: I think we have to realize that the album could have been released so much sooner. Unfortunately they ran into various issues. If this was released a year ago, maybe even two years ago, it would have been a lot bigger. It's speculation, because the album isn't actually out yet, but judging from the tracks that have come out so far, we're seeing some sort of reaction.
benanne: They built up this huge fanbase with a three track demo. If that album had come out a few years ago, it would have been heralded as a landmark album of djent, and now it kind of missed that window. Which isn't the band's fault, of course. It's still going to be big, because those people have been waiting a long time and they want to hear it, but I do believe it's not going to have the same impact as it would have had two years ago.
Clarity: But still, the response to the two tracks they put on YouTube was huge, and very positive. I think the album will get a very good response from the fans.
Zyglrob: I think this is comparable to the situation Vildhjarta were in. They built up quite a big fanbase with just 'Omnislash'. Then they went ahead and recorded 'Måsstaden' which isn't much alike. But I think they've really reaped a lot of benefits from 'Måsstaden'. Their videos are very popular on YouTube, they've been going on a lot of tours, they've played quite a lot of shows. They're really starting to make something in the scene. I'm not sure whether Monuments have got the same momentum.
benanne: I think they'll be alright. Vildhjarta are their labelmates, after all.
Klonere: The whole band is very 'intrinsic' within the scene, so they'll have no problem getting on tours and stuff. Browne knows everybody. It's interesting that you compared their situation to Vildhjarta's, because they both released demos that got a huge following - but as you said, 'Måsstaden' is a completely different beast compared to 'Omnislash'.
'Gnosis' on the other hand... it's pretty much the same as the demo. Do you think that hurts it? The fact that it has the same sound. Do you think if Monuments had said "Fuck it, this album is taking too long to come out, let's write something completely new"...
Meowzer: … I think they would have produced a better sounding album. Because djent has evolved way past this style. They stick to the original and they do it well, just like Meshuggah stick to their sound and they do it well, but the EP backed on "Meshuggah ripoff with cool grooves and ambient guitar and everything", and there are a whole lot of bands that do the same thing. And even so, I don't really want to say that those other bands do it better, but they've had a lot more practice at it. they usually have drums that are technical and really interesting, whereas on this album I didn't want to listen to the drums at all. They didn't sound original.
Klonere: It's weird because Mike Malyan is such an insanely talented guy, yet the drums on this album are so straightforward. Superior Drummer 2.0 could have played those and I really wouldn't have noticed at all.
Meowzer: Exactly. Listening to the newer stuff like 'Måsstaden' and 'Februus' - drums, holy shit, the drums are really good. I go through the album an entire time listening just to each instrument, or the vocalist. Whereas 'Gnosis', I listened to it and I kind of get the whole thing in one listen. It's really straightforward and simple, it's not super complicated. It's that kind of dry djent that you listen to for the grooves.
Klonere: I think it has its place though.
benanne: This album is going to be huge because a lot of people just want exactly that: they just want to hear the essence of 'djent' done right, and that's what this album is.
Klonere: When I wrote that article about what djent is and where it is going, I talked about how each of the big bands took the essence of djent and tacked on their own bits. On their debut, Periphery took djent and put on every other kind of metal, and on 'Periphery II' they put loads of progressive metal into it. Whereas what Monuments did was say: "we have djent, let's just make it really awesome and amazing, let's not add anything else to it". And I definitely do think there's a place for that, in my ears anyway.
Alex93: It's kind of weird, because I get the impression that Browne doesn't care much for 'the djent scene'. Whereas this album has a very 'standard djent' sound, in my opinion.
benanne: I think it's just a case of Browne not giving a fuck what everybody else is doing. He just wants to play the kind of music that he likes to play, and he doesn't really care what people are going to say about it.
Klonere: And that's something we need more of, definitely. Browne doesn't give a fuck and Olly is in the band, and he gives minus fucks. I don't think the band are going to have any sort of problem with the reactions to the album.
Zyglrob: I think they'll be glad if the fans dig it, and if they don't, they'll say: "well, you can just not listen to it". I don't think they'll try to win anyone over.
Klonere: So we talked about how the album is really straightforward and "it's just djent". Compared to its contemporaries like "Masstaden", "Periphery II", "One" and "Ever Forthright", which are all popular releases, do you think that people will look at this and say: "where are the huge layers and the ambient clean guitar leads"? Or rather "I really dig it because it's just straight-up groove"?
Zyglrob: I don't think it will hurt it all. Pete Graves from Red Seas Fire put it really well on Tumblr the other day. He said "the music industry is the only industry where being innovative doesn't get you anywhere. What you have to do is reproduce what's already been done and maybe even take a step back." Of course that's not what Monuments have done, but they haven't done anything completely mad either. I think that's something that will help it in terms of their stance within metal as a whole, and it will help them to build up a fanbase.
I hope to see them do something a bit more innovative, out of the ordinary on the next album. But if they stick to this sound as a whole, I think they're going to get quite far.
benanne: The album's straightforwardness makes it very accessible, especially to people who may not be familiar with 'djent' yet.
Meowzer: I was going to say the same thing: it's a gateway drug.
benanne: Exactly, it's a gateway album. It's going to appeal to a lot of people who aren't nerds like we are, who actively search for specific kinds of music on the internet. It's going to appeal to people who just listen to - dare I say - more mainstream stuff.
Meowzer: Yeah, non-prog stuff.
Klonere: Whenever I think of Monuments I think of Suicide Silence, because Browne was a guitar tech for them for quite a while. I think if you listen to Suicide Silence and dig that kind of death metal with groove and breakdowns, you'll definitely like Monuments a lot.
How would you rate 'Gnosis', out of 10?
Clarity: 8/10. It's a pretty nice album, but if it came out earlier it would have sounded fresher.
Meowzer: I'll give it 9/10, because I gave Veil Of Maya's album a 7 or something like that, and I still think this album just sounds good. It sounds good and it sounds like Monuments. It's unique, and I appreciate that a lot in a band. When it comes up on random on my media player I know who it is, and I'm happy with that. I think it's definitely worth buying and listening to.
Alex93: I give it a solid 8/10, definitely. The new vocalist is decent, in my opinion. Unfortunately this band have had so much against them, but despite all that they've done a pretty good job.
benanne: At this point I'm going to go with 8/10 as well, but it's really still growing on me.
Zyglrob: I'm going to give it a 9/10. And with the closing thoughts I'd like to say what people's opening thoughts will be, because the first thing that people will see when it comes through their letterbox or when they buy it, will be the album cover. It conveys quite a lot, with the upper spirit flowing out from the guy's head, with the solar system around it. It's very esoteric, it offers a lot of different interpretations and it really makes you think "this looks cool, I think I'm going to enjoy this". That's something that really speaks to me about this album, it can be enjoyed in a lot of different ways, and that's a big selling point.
benanne: I guess it's something we didn't really talk about, but the cover art and the merchandise look amazing.
Klonere: I'm going to give it an 8/10, and like benanne I think it still has room to grow. It's a really solid straight-up groovy album that does everything it sets out to do right, and gets over the challenges of having a completely new vocalist come in and rewrite everything within the space of a few months. It should have a much bigger legacy simply because it was written and finished a long time ago, and it probably deserves better, but it's still a fine piece of music and definitely worth a listen for anybody. Any progressive metal fan who can put up with harsh vocals should definitely listen to this.
The, quite frankly, stellar album artwork for 'Gnosis'.
'Gnosis' is out on Century Media Records on August 27th in Europe, and on September 25th in North America. The album is available for preorder on Amazon. Preorder bundles are also available from indiemerch.com and firebrandstore.com.
The band will be touring Europe with Stealing Axion, Vildhjarta and Jeff Loomis in October and November, as part of the Euroblast tour. They will also perform at Euroblast festival in Cologne, Germany on Saturday October 20th.
Thanks to the reviewers, and in particular to Daniel O' Connor for taking the lead and making things happen. Thanks also to John G. Sprich of the Euroblast Collective, and to Laura Thulke and everyone at Century Media.
Share your insights in the comments!
- Recent additions