Here's another IG review that makes mine look like I was praising it.

I bring this up because the reviewer mentions that some of the songs here are watered-down versions of Coldplay, something I forgot to mention in my review for some reason. Otherwise, I found the review pretty decent for a first review.

Emp's EC review is him not knowing what he wants from heavy metal while ignoring their great riffs.

If any of these sorts of bands start writing albums I'd rather hear over an Omen or Manilla Road album I'd gladly give it a better score.

Calling EC nothing but worship of previous 80s epic/USPM makes it really blatant you don’t know what you’re talking about here. It’s fine if you don’t like them, but the band is firmly from the hardcore scene, so acting like they’re some dime a dozen New Wave of YouTube Metal band kills your credibility here.

If I'd just said "none of their songs are really that catchy or interesting" would anybody be complaining then? I dunno. I've heard the stuff about the hardcore scene but nothing they do truly interests or captivates me in any way and I don't really hear enough deviation from old sounds to persuade me that they're doing much new. Just how I felt about it and I've given em a few chances at this point. Never said "dime a dozen Youtube" as part of the critiques either, by the way.

See I disagree with the EC review, I rather liked the album. But I understand where Emp is coming from, having thought this way about many trad metal bands. But EC is pretty special. I don't mind people having different opinions to mine, as long as I understand where they're coming from or what they're talking about, which wasn't the case with that Sabbath shitpile.

Empy, if you want Eternal Champion to grow on you a bit more, I suggest you locate the volume knob and start turning until you're having fun That said, I agree they don't do anything very original, and the idea that they use hardcore influences on the new album is absurd.

I am sure they're a shitload of fun live, as an olive branch here. Haha.

They are a "dime a dozen New Wave of YouTube Metal band" and as you pointed out "firmly from the hardcore scene", and here lies the problem with EC... I don't believe them, there's no heart in it. Emps review was fair and reasonable and I got where he was coming from, he was far more genorous than what I would've been if I was scoring that album... it's not like he gave it bloody 0%.

It's actually really hard to do that given the extremely ear-fatiguing, over-compressed production. It sounds wimpy when quiet, and aggravating when loud. It's also sounds really overproduced in terms of time correction and pitch correction, which works really poorly for this kind of style.

I agree with Empyreal's criticism. I'll grant that, songwriting-wise, they're doing some things that sound quite new and original to me - like rhythm and time signature. There are some original riffs as well. The vibe and the experience, however, is summed up perfectly by this sentence:

The most genuine thing in their music is actually the veneer of melancholy nostalgia for the bygone style that they're re-enacting. And this style of music needs to be aggressive, but this band just isn't aggressive at all.

I would've given it a much worse score and review before hearing Warlord this year, which really put into context an influence I had not known previously, which made the sound make a bit more sense - this heavy but smooth sound with that style of vocals. The idea that they're from the hardcore scene doesn't really pass here because it's obvious what they are going for, which is to recreate the kind of music they liked growing up. It's not trying to sound like a hardcore band exactly, unless you really want to nitpick into individual riffs or parts - which isn't how I usually look at music.

And yeah I mean I think I was fairly nice to it overall. I said it was good for what it was.

Ultimately I know some people here really love this new wave of trad bands, and prefer it to the 80s stuff even, but for me many of these bands just do not write memorable songs, which is really my criticism of all of them that I've reviewed this way.

I've got a history of disliking some of Empy's takes and executions of expressing them, but I actually thought that was a fine read.

Now, that's also coming from someone who isn't into EC.

Curious which ones... but it happens. I also disagree with you giving Tyr a 58%!

edit - Also Cross Purposes too, huh? Oh well.

Tyr deserves a way higher score - it's easily an 80% score for me at least, but that 52% score for Cross Purposes I can totally understand.

Nah Cross Purposes is rich heavy music with character. Not better than Tyr or Headless Cross but a very worthy release in my opinion.

Thanks. It is interesting to see which reviews get 'traction'. Very few do. I'm glad that one did.

Particularly the Deep Purple - Infinite review was WAY To high and the Testament - Brotherhood one (while I actually dislike that one as well) was way too low and didn't seem like it came from a very informed angle, lol. That one was more about the style. I could also include the Saxon - Destiny one but that review is so old, does it really even count?

Rest assured, those are the two lowest ranking Sabbath ones for me. I tried, man. I really did. But Headless Cross is in my top 5 Sabbath albums overall. I thought that one nailed everything that the two Martin albums following reached for.

I wouldn't change anything about what I said about 'Infinite' - wonderful stuff from a band that has many high points over several decades.

As for Testament, eh I don't regret anything about that either, awful regurgitated garbage... my least favorite kind of metal in general, see new Megadeth as well. Just nothing of value for me. That Saxon album was bad too. But yeah I mean people will have disagreements so it's fair enough.

I enjoy Empyreal's takes, but 89% for Now What?! is bonkers. That album was so dull.

Another great album. True mastery on almost every track. "Blood from a Stone" is especially erudite.

Fair enough. I couldn't make it through more than a couple of plays.

Their newest one fell slightly short of my expectations though, maybe I'll review that one sometime.

Just out of curiosity and for anyone to answer at will, do you find that when you sit down to review an album and listen to it intensely, you feel it much more strongly and can even change your initial opinion on it? Asking because sometimes I get into a so-so album much more when reviewing it, while also I can start finding all sorts of faults with other ones.

^ Definitely. I remember writing for Cenotaph's The Gloomy Reflections of our Hidden Sorrows and originally had a 70% score in my mind. Still, struggling to get it done, I at one point came to the conclusion that I just don't like the album too much and decided to forget about that review.

Yeah I mean like I said, I didn't really like it either, that type of thing is a hard sell for me as well. But every now and then it sucks me in, Dystopia actually being an example where it worked. But both of the two latest Testament records did basically nothing for me.

The Saxon one I more meant because of how it was written, lol. The "this isn't manly" stuff, but again, 10 years ago I woulda said the same type of shit Plus there's a lot of thrown around "this sucks" and "this is lame". Just never cared for that angle in general.

I love Destiny, it's not remotely heavy and is a pop album more than anything, so I get why it doesn't fare as well here.

I haven't read the Saxon review in ages so who knows, you're probably right that it isn't well written as a review. I just never want to hear that shit again. I'm a fan of plenty of lighter stuff too. I definitely have a tendency to be bombastic in negative reviewing. A lot of the really old ones are probably very poorly aged. I just read that Testament one again though and I still 100% stand by everything I wrote there, lol.

I re-read it too and I basically agree with most of it too, I think we just have different scoring scales lol.

This being said; have you listened to classic Testament albums since writing that? Because those are monumentally better!

I don't really do much casual reviewing these days, but I really could afford to review the rest of the Martin Sabbath albums at some point. I really wanted to review Tyr for its 30th anniversary last year but ended up losing track of time. That's one definitely between a 85-90% for me.

As much as I enjoy Cross Purposes, I can certainly understand such a low rating for it. Forbidden gets a lot of flack for how blatantly phoned in it was, but a lot of fatigue was already present beforehand. It was especially apparent on the tour afterward. I'd still give it at least a 75-80% though; I Witness, Virtual Death, and Evil Eye just do it for me.

I've been tempted to give that one a go for a while, but haven't bothered because I'm similarly lukewarm about it. How about I do one, you do one?
I did an Infester review recently that sat in my drafts for months. I kept going back to the record expecting to find something else in it, but it never clicked, so I wrote it up as it was.

Could never get into that album much, but you wrote an entertaining review for it!

Forbidden gets a better score for me because at LEAST it's something a little different, and like half the songs are catchy, even if obviously phoned in. I'll definitely be getting to that one. But I have two vacations in the span of the next 3 weeks so we'll see.

I only tried Forbidden once when I was going through all the Sabbath stuff while reading Iommi's book, and really disliked it. It just really sounded like a band that didn't have it in them anymore, and even Tony Martin sounded like shit.

I have to admit one of the most mystifying things about this site is the sheer amount of reviews in the 80% range or above for the Martin era Sabbath albums. I really would struggle to give any of them over 60%. Each to their own and all that, but the idea that somehow these records are overlooked metal classics completely baffles me.

Excellent vocals, strong instantly memorable tunes, great atmosphere. I don't see what's not to like.

I must say I don't think the production on the Martin era records helps much. They really need a heavier sound.

Would be great if you wrote more
I like reading those "hmm a lot of people seem to really love this album but it never really clicked for me" kind of reviews.

Lately I've been able to finish reviews again. Earlier I ended up feeling rather uninspired for a good month or two - sometimes that happens.

Next review I'll probably finish would be for Metal Church's Hanging in the Balance.

One should always and only write when one has inspiration or just simply feels like it. I took a few breaks. Some took years even


Great idea. I should too

Generally I like to write every day, but at one point I started to repeat myself whenever I tried to make progress. Anyway, I hope to reach review #150 before the end of the year.

I am thoroughly convinced those that consider the Martin era the height of Sabbath's existence place the importance of vocals infinitely higher than importance of riffs. Especially since the two least popular Martin albums, Cross Purposes and Forbidden, tend to be the least praised, while being the riffiest. Cross Purposes especially. That and Dehumanizer are the only two Sabbath albums between 1983 - 1995 where Iommi truly shines. "The Ozzy era is so overrated, Ozzy is a shitty singer," Ok, I disagree but fair enough, however it was during the 70s where Iommi showed he was THE ALL TIME RIFF GOD.

Having said that I still don't know how anyone can say with a straight face how the Martin era is better than the Dio era. Iommi's riffs are still excellent and I'm sorry, Tony Martin is not a better singer than Ronnie James Dio.