![]()
God damn, I never tire of banging my head to this. This is their best, IMO.
well, like i've said, a lot of people who like the other stuff i've recommended don't like warning due to a certain... emo-ness?WFAD is one of my fav albums ever though.
oh i know that discussion kind of ended but i meant to respond about SABOTAGE. this idea that it's their most mature/adventurous/original record strikes me as a pretty strange opinion. it's far more permeated with r'n'r, pop-rock and prog tropes than anything which came before, all of which were way more commonplace in the early '70s than that thick, warm darkness of the earlier material; i can see why someone raised solely on metal might find it a refreshing change of pace, but in the context of the time i think it was a regression. it's also a bit of a tonal grab-bag, you can tell there's scant unity between the guys' ambitions anymore. like anyone, i love the dirty proto-thrash of 'symptom of the universe' (that song, at least, is waaaaay ahead of its time), enjoy the doomiest moments of 'megalomania', the disquieting bounciness of 'am i going insane' etc, but it doesn't exactly fit together into a coherent whole, and much of the rest doesn't hold a candle to the revolutionary power of most of the earlier material.
Sabotage may be a "grab bag" of musical styles, but that doesn't change the fact that the entire album is still a very experimental piece by Sabbath standards.
It is cohesive, no matter what you think of it.
the vanilla blues/doom of the first three, or the quite standard heavy metal of Vol 4 or Sabbath Bloody Sabbath.
![]()
God damn, I never tire of banging my head to this. This is their best, IMO.
The last 3 albums by Coroner are fantastic, hard to nail down a best.
experimental 'by sabbath standards' is not the same thing as experimental 'by 70s rock music standards'. SABOTAGE is heavily influenced by a lot of the stuff early sabbath stood out from in the first place. arrangements are more complex than early sabbath though, i'll happily concede that.
thx for setting me straight on that one
you can not like them as much or whatever, but puhlease, this is just factually wrong. kinda sounds like you haven't heard some of these albums at all. the coked out sprawl of VOL. 4 wouldn't be "standard heavy metal" in any era since its conception, but particularly not back then when "standard heavy metal" wasn't even a thing. SABBATH BLOODY SABBATH is pretty damn proggy and only borderline metal half the time so that description sounds even more ridiculous in that case. frankly, aside from moments of filler here and there (the b-side of the s/t, for example), very little was 'standard' about any of those albums at the time they were released, and if it seems that way retrospectively it's only because they had such an overwhelming influence on all that followed.
I'm actually one of the biggest Sabbath fanboys you will ever meet tbh so yeah, your insinuation that I "haven't even heard" the earlier albums holds 0 weight.
But y'see I wasn't saying it was "the most mature and adventurous 70s rock album", I was saying it was "the most mature and adventurous Sabbath album".
Also your argument here basically amounts to "man Sabbath was there first sooo", so I fail to see how that is relevant. It is not 1975 anymore. Their albums have a clear sound that is not relevant to their place in the timeline. And bottom line, Sabotage is more intricately constructed and adventurous than any of the first five.