There are people whose names cannot be used in the same sentence with the word "retirement", except if the sentence is "There are people whose names cannot be used in the same sentence with the word "retirement", except if the sentence is..." ... What I mean is that Ozzy has a new album out - Scream - last in his discography bu propably not for long. No doubt that the legendary status of Ozzy is solidified in concrete in the hearts and mind of fans, labels, and charts alike, and that image needs quite some effort to sustain. And that's what makes the album curious for the likes of me - The Ozzy Osbourne Band has been completely renewed, and the most notable is the absence of Zakk Wylde. And the question that pop out is: did after 20 plus years of Wylde monopoly over the string is albums and concerts Ozzy (meaning Sharon) went for a change at a moment when the fans want just more of the same? Click "PLAY". Well, not. "Scream" is Ozzy. It is so much Ozzy that you could easily put it among the albums of the late 90s and rightfully so. Nice and tight compositions, solid riffs, a ballad, melodies, the whole 9 yards. And maybe that poses a bit of a problem because even though there isn't a single weak song in the album, there also isn't one to make you go "Holly fuck!!!" And don't get me wrong - no one will be sorry of they listen the album the whole way though a couple of times in a row even. It's just that Scream cannot shine through the peaks of Ozzy's career. Oh, yes, the guitars. Well, they are the same as in the Good Old Days. And not only the guitars but the wah-pedal and the talkbox even. Basically left me with the impression that the techs just set up the gear for Zakk and gave the axe to Guss G who did a tribute act. And that's not bad either. It's just that if you cut me open you'll see a black label on my black-bleeding heart and I wander - if things changed so radically just to remain the same, why were all the shifts, Sharon?