Still listening to the album, so I don't have a well formed opinion yet. However, there were a couple of things, that feel like I should comment on.
Obviously It's just one persons opinion and I don't hold myself to a greater intellect than any of you. Take a look at let us say, Sonata Arctica. Their first album probably sold more than all of Falconers cd's combined. Why would you think? Obviously the music is better and more appealing, it's composed better, and several reasons.
The fact that a band / artist / entertainer sells more than another is in no way an indicator of how good the music is or isn't. If such were the case, an entertainer like
Britney Spears would be providing some of the best quality music out there. To not go too far away from the realm of rock, let's take
Slipknot, who most likely have sold more albums than
Falconer and
Sonata Arctica combined. If we ask ourselves why this is, and our answer is like the one you gave above, it would be a good idea to reevaluate our stance.
Popularity should provide critical feedback to the band saying "your music is good" or "your music is not".
To have a logical fallacy (appeal to popularity) as a critical element that provides feedback to determine whether something is good or bad is a doomed premise. Alleging that "If many believe the earth is flat, it is flat" is failed logic, and it shouldn't be -in any way or manner- applied as a measurement for quality (even less for artistic value).
Notice that I'm not bashing your opinion, you are free to think and feel as you like about the music. This is just to point out certain elements that you are using to back up your thoughts do not make much sense,
The all dominating guitar is just Falconer's style.
Well, maybe, but truth be told, I thought it was a well known thing that Metal -as a genre- is guitar driven music.