Customer Reviews

Conquest

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This album is not for the "HIT" oriented American audience who expects from every Heep album the radio friendly easy listening. The album is for the intelligent listener with plenty of tollerance. It is a great album.
Very original, but not that different as spoken of. I would say it is more Uriah Heep sounding album than any later effort of the band untill very recent Sea of Light and Sonic Origami.Even singing. To tell the truth
I never recognised the band on such records as Abominog and Head First, I was told It's Uriah Heep. The singing is closer to Byron than to Lawton, but with some Glenn Hughes/Geddy Lee/Pavloff's dog/Buddgie kind of style.
A liitle bit of Motownish soul effort on the Sloman's part. But still I would deffinetly recognise Heep, listening to it blinded. Songwriting is terrific so is the sound on this remastered record. It realy is a great final record of the 70's Uriah Heep who's many of us still are the fans.
But it is also a music masterpiece which I will recomend to any music lover who is ready to explore,but that's why we're call ourselves experts
right? Explore and enjoy.

Having been a Heep fan since the mid 70's , I remember the first time I heard this on vinyl . All I can say is , what was Ken and Mick thinking . John Sloman is awful . The only decent song is "Feelings" . This is only for real Heep fans who need to have it for their collection . For a better Heep CD try "Demons and Wizards" , "Sweet Freedom" or more recently "Sonic Origami" .

I never even heard of this album until about a year and a half ago. Around the time that CONQUEST came out, URIAH HEEP had practically lost their audience in America; I don't even remember seeing this album in the record stores when it came out!! The remastered version of this does a great job of detailing all the events that surrounded the making of this album with it's liner notes. The album itself is really not that great. It is definitely more hard rock oriented than FALLEN ANGEL and the album definitely sounds good; the production is bass and rhythm guitar heavy.The two main problems are the songs, which are not too memorable and JOHN SLOMAN's singing. He was definitely the worst singer URIAH HEEP ever had, tho' I'm also not a big fan of their current singer, who sounds too much like STEVE PERRY for my liking! SLOMAN's singing style was all wrong for HEEP! The backing vocals,which were the worst thing about FALLEN ANGEL, are one of the album's few saving graces! Most of the songs aren't really that horrible; I mean they rock, they roll, they just are not that memorable (I said that already, didn't I?)

Well, at least the cover is interesting....

Conquest is probably the most atypical of all Uriah Heep albums. The songs have a tailored commercial feel and are tailored around the rangy voice of new vocalist John Sloman (in what would be his only Heep album). However, the songwriting continues to be strong and the production is immaculate. A fine and diverse record overall, but not recommended as an introduction to the band because it is far removed from the classic Uriah Heep style and sound. Still, a very good album.

As a 70's era Uriah Heep fan I knew that I would have to be open minded in purchasing the Conquest album.But I was pleasantly surprised in the quality of both the music and the recording.This reissue import has a Great sound!! Listen with headphones!!{you will not be dissapionted}I am an avid music fan and anytime I see Great Rock n roll bands such as Uriah Heep or others receive poor to average reveiws I become suspicious and curious.Because in most circumstances these are usually the best albums containing the best music.Conquest is no exception.Good things can be heard here.Although the songwriting is different from what one might expect it is still full of that classic trademark Uriah Heep sound.The vocal work {Lead and harmonys}are worth the price of the cd alone. Not to mention the Great musicianship that follows every Heep recording.Everybody needs to give these guys credit for making so many line up changes over the years and yet still be able to put out good music.This Conquest album should be judged in and of itself and on its own merits and should not be compared to older 70's Heep albums.Afterall we need to remember that this album was released during a different decade and time.Which in my opinion makes it all the better.Final thoughts: Is this older Uriah Heep {No} Is it Good Uriah Heep "YES"!!!!

I Guess I'm not a diehard fan or maybe I don't need to be to like this album. (...). He belongs with a Bay City Roller type band or Shawn Cassidy solo act type thing. His voice ruins the few would-have-been good songs. I have a lot of 'Heep but after about about 2 times of listening to this cd (original release) I returned it. Don't recommend re-release unless you just have to own all of their studio releases. Bonus tracks still have crummy gay voice. (...)

"Conquest" and I have one thing in common... we were both born in 1980, so that makes this the first Uriah Heep album to be released in my lifetime. I like it a lot, but I must admit that it took some time for me to really get into it. A friend of mine whom had it let me borrow it several times, and each time I listened to it I discovered something new about it to like that I'd somehow missed before. Not like Heep's classic "Demon's and Wizards", from 1974, which converted me to the Uriah Heep cause after only one listen (less than that... if memory serves me correctly, I heard only tracks 1-4 and 6 that very first time). So if you're new to Heep, keep in mind that this may not strike you as a brilliant piece of work for quite a while. But give it patience, and it will blossom into one of your very favourites (in the meantime, you can console yourself with the fact that that is one awesome picture on the cover!).

Two songs on this album really do it for me... I don't know if I'd go so far as to call them the "Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane" of Uriah Heep, but it's a pair of songs that really need to be listened together (for me, at least). Tracks 5 and 6, "Carry On" and "Won't Have to Wait Too Long". Honestly, two of the greatest songs ever written, both of them highly unusual but very memorable. In spite of the fact that they somehow just belong together, there's really nothing to connect them save for the fact that they're both decidedly odd and are next to each other on the same album. I'll sometimes pop in the CD just to hear those two... (the lyrics to "Won't Have to Wait Too Long" are quite funny, too... usually when I listen to music, I pay attention to the melody and vocals, but not necessarily the words being sung. One day while riding in the car I pulled out the sleeve just to look the lyrics over, and I really discovered the words for the first time. Now the song's twice as good as it was before). But I do go on. The rest of the album is highly enjoyable too... in particular the wonderfully dreary "Fools" (love the backing vocals), which I realize now is track four, right before "Carry On". So you've got a terrific three in a row, in addition to what comes before and after.

The bonus tracks are excellent... I was particularly excited to hear the John Sloman version of "Think it Over" (which he wrote with Trevor Bolder, by the way. As much as I liked Pete Goalby, the next lead singer Heep would have, and in spite of the fact that Sloman's presence was what drove keyboard player/founding member/lead songwriter Ken Hensley out of the fold, I honestly would have loved to hear more from him. Love that voice of his!). "Think it Over" remains my favourite song on Heep's next album after this one, "Abominog", where a version of it was done with Goalby. Admittedly, I like the Goalby version better, but the one you'll hear here is quite good too. "Love Stealer" is another bonus track definitely worth a listen (and the bonus tracks here will be your only chance to hear Heep with Greg Dechert on keyboards).

Anyway, in conclusion, this is one great album that is definitely worth your time and hard-earned dollars. Check it out, but just remember to be patient.

Doncha know I won't have to waeeeeeeeeeet.... dooloooooooonnnnggggwowwww.... Doncha know I won't have to waeeeeeeeeeet.... dooloooooooonnnngggg....

Ha ha!

Carry on Carry on,

MN

The heepsters had been on a hard rock pop rock mixture a for three years? by the time of this one. They did this well but this one is more leaning toward pop than some of their stuff. It's good pop but a smart hard rockin band has lots of hard rock and some pop not half and half. Still songs like 'been hurt' are as good as even pop song on the radio then or now. Obviously you must be a fan of pop rock hard mixture music to like this one. But the heep always had beautiful backing vocals and tight instrumentalization skills. But obviously fans want mainly hard rock and a little pop from the boys and this is not that. So completists will want this one and newer fans should go for something pre-1977 or post this one.

This is by no means the fiasco some fans would have you believe; it just doesn't sound much like Uriah Heep. Vocalist John Sloman, formerly of Lone Star, doesn't have a bad voice, but it's wildly unsuited for both the band and the material. While the album does suffer somewhat as a result, there are some excellent songs here, including "No Return", and two of the best tracks bassist Trevor Bolder has written: "Fools", and "It Ain't Easy", the latter being one of the greatest songs Heep has ever recorded. Definitely worth a listen. (BTW, if you're looking for the worst Heep album, it's 1985's "Equator", without question).

"Conquest" was the first full- length Uriah Heep album I heard. So, without having much of anything to compare it to, I loved the album. I still do, even after having collected and listened to all their other albums many times. Even today many Heep fans disregard this as one of their weakest. Usually they blame it on vocalist John Sloman, the band's 3rd singer (new drummer Chris Slade, currently in Asia, always managed to escape their wrath). I don't get it. Sure, Sloman is different, with a soulful Geddy Lee thing going on- but so what? I like to hear differences when new members come into bands. Anyway, to the material. If this isn't the best stuff Heep had come up with since "Sweet Freedom" six years prior, what is? 'No Return' boasts an intriguing reggae feel for one thing, much more vital and interesting than the disco experimentation that stifled "Fallen Angel". 'Imagination' is eerier than anything Heep has come up with since (with the possible exception of 'Night Of The Wolf'), seeming almost like Black Sabbath in spots. 'Feelings', 'Fools' and 'Carry On' are all pop-metal offerings that not only rank among Heep's best material in that vein but should put such followers as Def Leppard to shame. The last three cuts on the original album are admittedly very dissimilar to Heep's sound, but all for the better. 'Won't Have To Wait Too Long' is curiously melancholic as is the superb neo-ballad 'It Ain't Easy'. 'Out On The Street', while certainly a very good track, is the only one on "Conquest" that seems out of place to me. There are five OUTSTANDING bonus tracks on the remaster that supposedly completes the work of the Sloman era Heep (he only stayed for this one album): and while I won't go into them one by one, note that two of them are the only recordings Heep issued with Hensley's first replacement Greg Dechert. And one, 'Think It Over' was re-recorded by the next lineup for the "Abominog" album, with woefully inferior results. The song 'Lying' deserves special mention as well. While merely a demo, this is a mightily powerful song and recording, one of my all-time Heep favorites on it's own. So maybe I'm in the minority, but I can't see anything that should preclude anyone from buying "Conquest". Not even as a first purchase...hell, it worked pretty well that way for me.