The album is actually already growing on me for what it's worth. Yeah, it's underwhelming for a Sabbath album but it's still the best since Dehumanizer.

It's playing over and over at home and in my iPod, something only Target Earth achieved in the 2013 crop. So this may well surpass Amorphis and Rotting Christ on my end of the year list.

Very well said, man. I'll listen to actual honest and well written doom metal instead.

Didn't care about this from the announcement. And just saying since I finally heard a new song on the radio... still don't care. Just wasn't that great. Wasn't horrible. it was like a plate of plain white rice, sure you can eat it but it's not appetizing in the least. With Tony. I rather listen to someone who is inspired and really passonate about creating what they are creating.

I think we might have hinted at this before, but does anybody else think the band really missed a trick by not looking to stuff like Sabbath Bloody Sabbath and Sabotage for inspiration rather than the really early material? I don't intend to say anything negative about the first three albums because I love them as well, but clearly the loose, jammed-out nature of those records is a large part of what made them great. I mean, no matter what they're actually striving for, can anybody imagine them ever writing a song like "Fairies Wear Boots" today? So, by 1973 they are a well-honed beast, still able to convince with seemingly free and spirited jams ("Sabbra Cadabra" for instance), yet incorporating a whole load of other elements into their sound to really spice it up. A modern take on the SBS formula would be excellent, I think, with full-on production techniques of today and everything. But no, it's 1970 now apparently, except without the freedom and chemistry that the band had in their youth, which essentially robs the music of energy or enthusiasm.

I think that Abom is on the money here. SBS and Sabotage weren't as loose as their predecessors, but they made up for that with a nack for more progressive song structures and lots of experimentation. It certainly would've been easier to go for that sort of sound than trying to reproduce stuff as unique as the debut or Master of Reality, what with those albums being, for the most part, products of their time.

Still, I think that what Tony said about the music being written for Ozzy's voice is a big part of the problem. The guy can't fucking sing anymore, and if you write riffs with him in mind, then you sure as hell are going to end up with some stiff shit. Remember that, as great as those first six albums are, with the exception of Sabotage, Ozzy usually didn't do much more than just follow the guitar.

Certainly true; I'm not supposing he coudl deliver anywhere near the performance of SBS and Sabotage, surely the most passionate singing he ever delivered in his career. Still, it isn't really necessary is it? I mean a lot of progressive music lets the vocals take a back seat anyway, and they could still make use of ozzy's low register (what he's got left) all they wanted.

If you put it that way, then yes, I'd say it would work. Ozzy sounding the way he does, I don't think anyone would mind if he simply became a secondary asset of the music. Not that the Queen Bitch of Money that is Sharon would ever allow that, though.

Or the millions of casual fans who have no idea who are Tony Martin or Glenn Hughes.

Fuck that people!

Oh yeah.....

.....

You know? Considering that my interaction with the metal scene is pretty much limited to this place, I tend to forget that not everything runs with MA's standards. Crap, I should leave the house more often

Lucky them!

You have already explained your dislike of Martin, but man, what's wrong with Hughes? The man is awesome!

He truly is! Big fan of his, but not in Sabbath. Seventh Star has to be the most disappointing purchase I ever made.

Ah, oh..... Gotcha. Yeah, Seventh Star is, so far, the only thing with him on vocals which I haven't enjoyed (although there are still a couple of cool songs to be found in it). Remember though, that SS wasn't supposed to be a Sabbath album in the first place.

I can't stand Glenn Hughes, personally....oversings and has that grating 'soul' delivery. No thanks.

The title track to 'Seventh Star" is magnificent and I don't see how anyone coudl hate it. There's one other song on there that i think is pretty great; it's got loads of wicked bluesy Iommi soloing. But yeah, I would be lying if I said I thought it was a stellar album.

Everyone is talking about new Sabbath today, so my friend just went and posted a song...I clicked on it, expecting Ozzy, but it turned out to actually from Forbidden. I'll tell you all I had a serious "what the hell's going on" moment there for a while. No, I never listened to Forbidden before...just the song "Rusty Angels", which I thought was decent for the Martin era.

Well, considering that none of the albums those two made with Black Sabbath are mandatory listening, this really isn't a problem.

I'm gonna get it this week. Ozzy, Tony, & Geezer making a new album together. Never expected that until the announcement a few months ago. Anyway, this one's #1 on my "to buy" list for 2013 because Sabbath's early albums are my favorite music ever made.

I fucking love white rice, so will I like this album?

Ummm......nope.

Headless Cross and TYR would like a word with you.

We aren't talking about listening tastes. We're talking about mandatory listening. Those albums were not Sabbath's most highly praised, and they weren't the most famous for a reason.
We can call albums like the first 6 and Heaven And Hell mandatory listening because of how they shaped music, and how highly they were actually praised. Headless Cross and TYR did not do any of that. Absolutely nobody would call those albums influential, no matter how much they liked them.

So PLEASE explain to me what makes them mandatory listening. Pretend I'm new to Black Sabbath in general. Why are they mandatory listening?

Same goes for you too.

In all fairness, to me "mandatory listening" just means an album that's so good it needs to be heard. Just because something is hugely influential doesn't mean its particularly good. Why should something be mandatory listening just because a lot of people said it was really good? It might still be lame. Even if it influenced a genre, I honestly think oftentimes a lot of artists that came later far outshine the originators anyway. Perhaps not so much in the case of Black Sabbath, because I actually love Black Sabbath, but still. If "mandatory listening" is just hugely influential works that get fellated all the time, I think I'm better off sticking with my definition of the term.

So there's no "mandatory listening" album, gotcha.



Of course, you might still think a highly influential work is lame, because tastes are personal and highly subjective. Just because Bathory is highly influential in some subgenres of metal doesn't mean I feel like I must pretend I like it, but giving it a listen helps put things in perspective for me.

But note that if you think a newer artist "outshines" the originator, there is presumably a point of comparison between the two. The originators' albums were mandatory to the newer artist in that case.

It's up to you if you want to understand where the music you listen to comes from, how it came to be. A lot of people who are really into music like exploring that aspect of music, although it's not "mandatory".

The other reason people point to highly praised albums is simply a matter of practicality. Sure, you can point a newbie toward something really obscure that only you and a few other people like but chances are he might prefer something in the genre that more people appreciate. So there's a matter of probabilities.

"Mandatory listening" is just an expression. Nothing is mandatory, and there's no guarantee you or anyone else will like anything recommended or praised. But it's more logical to recommend an influential album because of the logic of probabilities and because it puts things in perspective historically. Or you can be a unique snowflake and recommend Tony Martin albums that almost nobody, including Geezer and Tony, gives a shit about.

And for what it's worth, I tend to think the originators usually capture the essence. The followers rarely do, they just distill the formula. For me to like a newer act, it has to capture the essence of the original and perfect it and/or innovate significantly in its own way to push the concept in a newer direction.

To me it is never about 'pushing into a new direction' because there's only so much that can be done with the basic elements of metal that I like - catchy riffs, non-busy drumming, lyrical hooks, definable choruses and all those components linking up seamlessly. If you take a blueprint another band provides, just adding your own unique voice (literally) is fine for me.

In this case we could point to any super obscure band that has a few kickass albums. Remember that thread I started on Lesbian? They're pretty kickass, but I don't call them mandatory listening. Kickass =/= Mandatory.
For another example, we can look at Slayer. We could all point to Hell Awaits or Show No Mercy or South Of Heaven, but I don't call them mandatory, even if they're fucking great. Reign In Blood was considered, in the grand scheme of things, the pinnacle of their career, and was very influential on how the genre would shape, and metal in general. So to give SOME perspective on this for somebody just new to Slayer, you would listen to this album first. Even if you don't like Reign In Blood as much as the rest of their discography, what would make those mandatory to listen to instead? Simply because you like them more?

In the end I feel your definition, along with your line of "fellated", kinda makes you sound like a special snowflake and not looking at the big picture. So if somebody was starting new with Black Sabbath, I'm not throwing them a Tony Martin album for a few reasons:
1. It's not a logical place to start when it's in the WAY middle of their career.
2. Those albums were not influential and not important in the grand scheme of things.
3. They were not the most highly praised of their albums. Remember that this isn't the best forum for that kind of perspective. Look at one review of Headless Cross, for example:
http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/B ... oomknocker
100%. When you compare it to their past works and what they did, it's just so bloody inaccurate it's not funny. Calling the album that album their "darkest" and "most ambitious" sounds pretty silly, don't you think? I don't trust this guy to hep somebody discover Black Sabbath because he doesn't get "it".

As for the new album? I haven't listened to it all yet. I'm sure that it might be pretty awesome, but nobody will call it mandatory listening. I'll be picking it up for sure though.

So three of the bonus tracks have found their way to Youtube. They're all kinda lame though.

Methademic
Peace of Mind
Pariah

Overall, the new one is a pretty bad one. But I've recently (refreshingly!) came to the conclusion- or came out of the closet in this regard, you might say- that I thoroughly dislike basically all post-ozzy sabbath (Turn up the Night, the one exception), and that I find most Ozzy sabbath really boring as well. Really boring. Basically, this is a band I already find boring but with an even worse sounding singer and an Iommi that is nowhere near Children of the grave/solitude/symptoms of the universe/electric funeral/planet caravan form. One of the most forgettable albums from this millenium.

I think 13 is the perfect end cap for Sabbath's career, which I am almost certain it will be. They even bring everything full circle with the church bells and storm at the end. "End of the Beginning" sounds a lot like their titular song, only a bit more "positive" and not quite as hopelessly demonic. My main problem with a lot of the songs (including "End of the Beginning") on 13 is that they sound like deliberate throwback riffs. The Devil You Know at least maintained a freshness throughout - you had never heard those songs before, and they knocked you back. 13 sounds like a classic band trying to sound classic again. And sometimes they succeed - God is Dead? is a great jam, and Zeitgeist makes me cream my panties in the same way Planet Caravan"does - though not as hard (PC has the tastiest guitar solo ever on it). Iommi's soloing sounds pretty uninspired on this album (sad to say, as he is usually so tasty), but can you blame the man? I don't know how well I'd be able to shred while battling lymphoma either. Probably not very well, considering I can't shred in the first place. Oh, and Ozzy sounds way overproduced but I think it actually works. I like that way Rubin produced this album.

I enjoy it quite a bit, but again - no Devil You Know. Some tracks, like Loner, are pretty shitty and will leave you shaking your head. But for the most party, it is dark, melodic, and memorable - and this is what counts.

I didn't know that, thanks!

Methademic is fucking amazing! This should have been on the regular album as it offers a nice change of pace and Geezer is really noticeable on that one.

I just read first 2 reviews of the "13" placed here on MA and I am shocked what an evil and negative opinion is presented in them. The album, no matter if you like Rubin´s production or Ozzy´s vocal or simplistic drumming, is too good to be just trashed like shit. Claiming that this is "worst comeback ever" and scoring 0% is absolute denial of the facts and hard work done and author of that review is probably deaf to the bone.
It is great album, it includes all the characteristics early first 5 albums of Sabs endorsed and it simply takes time back to this era. There is onyl one serious negative on thsi record I found. When you close the eyes you have feeling you are listening to Count Raven....

Giving the album a 0% score is certainly absurd (it's more like a 40%, really), but everyone has the right to thrash it, Cagalar, especially considering how bloody mediocre it is. 13 is nothing but a reshashed, dishonest husk of an album, and as far as I'm concerned, it deserves to be treated as such.

I'd like to post this here because I love Jim Norton - it's an interview with the guys about the album.

http://blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode= ... mID=191075

The only thing I outright disagree with is how the album isn't rehashing riffs, which it clearly does.

I'd rate it around 40% - 50% including the bonus tracks. Iommi and Butler did as much as they can but overall it's just as insipid and bland as the Soundgarden comeback.

That 0% review is dumb. Usually I don't care about such things, but that is way too harsh. No way it's one of the worst albums ever made, which that score implies. Yeah, it isn't the greatest of comebacks, but it's still solid. I'd personally give it around 60%. I don't see how people are disappointed anyway. Anyone who thought it was going to be a great album was trippin' more than Ozzy. I've had low expectations since it was first announced and if anything, I'm surprised that it's ending up being an okay album. I understand that people don't like it, but still, 0% is silly.

That 0% completely baffled me when I saw it. As I said in the reviews section, even if you go into this album desiring to hate it, in no way is this album a 0% album.

0% review is a turd. The Shaggs record 0% albums, and Train. Sabs get five percents out of the gate simply because they INVENTED HEAVY FUCKING METAL.

Fatties at home recording their one-man shoegaze post-black masterpiece on their computer, eating cold deli sammiches and trashing the new Black Sabbath record do not count as people and their opinions do not count as opinions. They look through furtive eyes.

That 0% review is giving me a headache. Phrases like "Fuck you, Tony Iommi", "Tony Iommi sucks!" are absolutely juvenile. Man, it's the "Iron Man" Tony Iommi. What has he left to prove in this stage of his career? Besides, he's battling with cancer.

While I don't think the album deserves a 0%, I'm 100% agree with dronriot. 13 is a pain to listen. I said it before: the album is so dishonest, Iommi is so blatantly ripoffing himself that I the only thing I perceive from 13 is disappointment.

I think the rip off/self tribute factor alone puts the album in 50%, then substract Ozzy's most tired and one-note performance of his life (cause it's not only his range being restricted to a 3rd minor interval, it's the 'monosylabe' thing like he can't speak 3 works together) and you have like a 25%-30% not more than that. Wilk sounds generic as fuck, it the credits said Clufetos or whatever other modern rock/metal drummer I wouldn't notice it. The production, while not bad, it's a bit too cold for my ears. Geezer plays decently, but even his basslines are uninspired.

As some said before, it's FUCKING Black Sabbath, they FUCKING invented metal and this level of mediocrity and self plagiarism can't be accepted from them, not from Iommi, especially taking into account he really had it with Heaven & Hell's only album, an album I would gladly give a 100%.

Hell, I think even Cantrell could write a better Sabbath album nowadays. Iommi has fallen.

I listened to it only once the day before yesterday. Mentally shrugging, I haven't felt like putting it on again. It's boring, that fundamentally passable, spin-able, inoffensive, subtle kind of boring. But still pretty damn boring. Were I to choose a score from what I remember now about the album, I'd probably go with something between 30-50, something like that. 0% does suggest pure aural agony, utter zero-effort sonic diarrhoea to me, which I don't feel applies here, but not everybody translates their review content into numbers the same way and I find myself agreeing with drone's actual review much more than that 90% review (and its content) I saw elsewhere the other day.