Conquest

Roger Gößmann (Schweinfurt, Germany) writes "The CONQUEST album is the one I have big problems to listen to. That is because of the vocal performance of John Sloman. I cannot understand why Ken Hensley never did the vocals by himself. Ken is a much better vocalist than Sloman. I really love the vocal performances of Hensley on his solo work and I can still remember thinking (when I first heard Hensley on his solo albums) that it must be the voice of David Byron. So why he didn't do the vocals? The album has good songs on it and sounds good. But with Sloman it is sometimes hard to listen to it."

Brad Duren (Oklahoma, US) writes "I had never heard this album until 1992. Glad I hadn't. John Sloman is pathetic, at least within the context of Heep. The spirit was clearly on the wane. It is hard for me to adequately judge the songs because I find Sloman so repugnant, but Fools is a highlight. Oh... if they had only chosen Peter Goalby over Sloman."

Todd Pence (Fairfield, VA) writes, "Unquestionably the most atypical of all the Uriah Heep albums, this may be the best testament of the band's diversity and ability to adapt themselves. Here, amidst much internal turmoil, and playing in a new unfamiliar style for yet another new vocalist, they manage to create a record that while not a classic, is at least a competent and polished effort. This is certainly not the Uriah Heep we know and love, but it's not at all bad, either."

Album Review | Lyrics | Reissue Liner Notes | Artist Comments

Previous album Next album

Content Copyright © 1997 Jay Pearson

LinkExchange Member

Free Home Pages at GeoCities