Editing Technical Ecstasy (section)

==Critical reception==
{{Album ratings
| rev1 = [[AllMusic]]
| rev1Score = {{Rating|2|5}}<ref>{{AllMusic|class=album|id=r2004|label="Black Sabbath: ''Technical Ecstasy''" |first=Greg |last=Prato |access-date=13 September 2011}}</ref>
| rev2 = ''[[Encyclopedia of Popular Music]]''
| rev2Score = {{Rating|3|5}}<ref name="Larkin">{{cite book|last1=Larkin|first1=Colin|title=Virgin Encyclopedia of Popular Music|date=1997|publisher=Virgin Books|location=London|isbn=1-85227 745 9|page=138|chapter=Black Sabbath}}</ref>
| rev3 = ''[[Martin C. Strong|The Great Rock Discography]]''
| rev3Score = 5/10<ref name="Strong">{{cite book |last1=Strong |first1=Martin C. |title=The Great Rock Discography |date=2006 |publisher=Canongate Books |location=Edinburgh |isbn=1-84195-827-1 |chapter=Black Sabbath |pages=98}}</ref>
| rev4 = ''[[The Rolling Stone Album Guide]]''
| rev4Score = {{Rating|2|5}}<ref name="RS">{{cite magazine |url=https://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/black-sabbath/albumguide |title=Black Sabbath: Album Guide |magazine=[[Rolling Stone]] |access-date=5 June 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120427215415/http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/black-sabbath/albumguide |archive-date=27 April 2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
| rev5 = ''[[Spin Alternative Record Guide]]''
| rev5score = 2/10<ref name="Weisbard & Marks 1995">{{cite book|editor1-last=Weisbard |editor1-first=Eric |editor1-link=Eric Weisbard |editor2-last=Marks |editor2-first=Craig |year=1995 |title=[[Spin Alternative Record Guide]]|chapter= Blondie|publisher=[[Vintage Books]] |location=New York |isbn=0-679-75574-8|pages=46-47}}</ref>
}}
The album received mixed reviews, with Phil Alexander writing in 1998: "While today hardcore Sabs fans defend some of the bold steps taken on ''Technical Ecstasy'', it was a confused offering which still hit Number 13 in the UK but limped into the US charts at 52." In 2001, ''[[Guitar World]]'' was less kind, calling it perhaps the "least-loved effort of the original lineup" with the band "trying to stretch its sound in several different directions, none of them exceptionally successful". It deemed "Rock 'N' Roll Doctor" "a bad [[Kiss (band)|Kiss]] imitation", while eschewing "It's Alright" as "a sub-par [[Paul McCartney]]-style pop ballad". In 2013, ''[[Mojo (magazine)|Mojo]]'' magazine opined: "''Technical Ecstasy'' is the sound of Sabbath trying to make a grown-up, radio-friendly rock record and, in some parts, it works&nbsp;... Mostly, however, it doesn't with tracks like 'Back Street Kids', 'Rock 'N' Roll Doctor' and 'Dirty Women' resorting to clichéd and ill-fitting rock moves." Greg Prato of ''[[AllMusic]]'' agrees: "it was not on par with Sabbath's exceptional first five releases", but praises "Dirty Women", the "funky" "All Moving Parts (Stand Still)" and the "raging opener" "Back Street Kids".<ref name="Prato" />

In ''The Great Rock Discography'' (2006), [[Martin C. Strong]] bemoaned the album's "ill-advised experimentation" and believed it marked "the beginning of the end".<ref name="Strong" /> In ''[[The Rolling Stone Album Guide]]'' (2004), ''Technical Ecstasy'' is described as "the Seventies-era Sabbath album least likely to be found in a hard-rock fan's collection. It's not horrible, but you wonder if anyone in the band remembers making it. Is it an ill-fated attempt to snag some of the [[boogie rock|boogie-rock]] money that [[Ted Nugent]] was rolling around in? Or had they just run out of steam? Tony Iommi's guitar is the only thing left alive."<ref name="RS" /> In his ''Uncut'' piece, Watts wrote: "Punk is on the horizon and Sabbath try reinvention, with mixed results."<ref name="Watts" /> Writing in the ''[[Spin Alternative Record Guide]]'' (1995), Rob Michaels deemed ''Technical Ecstasy'' far inferior to the surrounding Sabbath records, adding: "While the album's aimless synthesized wankery is arguably technical, ecstasy comes only to those who consign its cover to permanent dope de-seeding detail."<ref name="Weisbard & Marks 1995" />

In 1992, Iommi admitted to ''Guitar World'': "Black Sabbath fans generally don't like much of ''Technical Ecstasy''. It was really a no-win situation for us. If we had stayed the same, people would have said we were still doing the same old stuff. So we tried to get a little more technical, and it just didn't work out very well."

In rankings of the band's albums, ''Technical Ecstasy'' was listed 10th by Eduardo Rivadavia of ''[[Ultimate Classic Rock]]'',<ref name="Rivadavia" /> 11th by Paul Elliott of ''[[Classic Rock (magazine)|Classic Rock]]'',<ref name="Elliott" /> and 13th by John Hadusek of ''[[Consequence of Sound]]'',<ref name="cos" /> Nick Ruskell of ''[[Kerrang!]]'',<ref name="Kerrang list" /> and Michael Hann of ''[[The Guardian]]''.<ref name="Hann" /> Hadusek believed ''Technical Ecstasty'' marked "where Black Sabbath changed, and not for the better", adding: "On one hand, the songs had become more complex, flowery, and aurally varied — nothing wrong there. But it’s awkwardly executed by Iommi, who produced the album. Instead of coming off as [[progressive music|progressive]], these experiments reek of a band losing touch with the traits that made them great. The studio effects and synthesizers often overtake the bass and guitar."<ref name="cos" /> Ruskell believes the album is "actually pretty good", despite its reputation as the first Black Sabbath album to reveal "cracks", but still believed it lacked the "hungry, stoned-out [[blues]]" of the band's first three albums, or the "coke-guzzling creativity" of the next three.<ref name="Kerrang list">{{cite web |last1=Ruskell |first1=Nick |title=Black Sabbath: Every album ranked from worst to best |url=https://www.kerrang.com/black-sabbath-every-album-ranked-from-worst-to-best |website=Kerrang! |access-date=13 June 2024 |date=30 June 2021 |archive-date=13 June 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240613222824/https://www.kerrang.com/black-sabbath-every-album-ranked-from-worst-to-best |url-status=live }}</ref> Rivaavia called it a "bold but ill-fated attempt to mature and explore novel musical directions", believing it could have been comparable to ''Sabbath Bloody Sabbath'' (1973) if not for "the largely unimpressive songs to carry those innovations to fruition"<ref name="Rivadavia" /> Elliott believes that it was the first album on which the band "faltered", believing some songs, such as "Back Street Kids", to be "hokey", but adding that there are several great songs, including "Dirty Women" and the ballad "It's Alright".<ref name="Elliott" /> Hann wrote that while "Back Street Kids" may back Butler's claim that the album was a response to punk, "most of the rest of ''Technical Ecstasy'' was a mess."<ref name="Hann" />