For those who like ozzy sabbath only...i want to know why?

[TheElfoid]

I've heard this notion several times that to many, Sabbath was Ozzy's backing band. I have yet to meet anybody who actually thought that was the case though. Not saying they don't exist, they might. Anyways, it seems that you assume that people who don't like the Tony Martin era think that Sabbath was Ozzy's backing band, or that those people just aren't aware of the Tony Martin era. Maybe you don't actually assume that, it just seems that way from your post. That people have different tastes in music accounts for at least 50% of the cases though, I would think.

I have friends who on their itunes playlist have songs like "Iron Man" (the original, not a live cover on an Ozzy solo tour) listed as Ozzy Osbourne. I suggested they let me correct it and they said "well its all Ozzy isn't it? No one listens to the other stuff"

This might also be a geography thing. I see you're in Germany. Metal has a higher profile there than in my home of the UK, and the majority of metal fans I know have not heard of Tony Martin. I plan to go to the upcoming Headless Cross show, and I posted about the gig to the University of Birmingham Metal Society, of which I am a member, and only a few people knew who Tony Martin was, and only one of them had ever listened to his Sabbath material (and that person only knew one song). Over in Germany, Martin might be better known.

[Monster Boy]

^^I just recently moved here, from the good ol US of A. Many people don't know who Tony Martin is, you're right. I f they did, they wouldn't necessarily like that Sabbath era though was the point I was trying to make. On this board for instance, I would hazard a guess that 95% of the regular posters are fully aware of all the lineups, but a good 40% or so don't like one era or another.

[TheElfoid]

Is this a metal society where everyone pretty much listens to System of a Down, grindcore, hardcore, porncore, screamo, technical death metal, math metal, symphonic prog and norwegian black metal?

I'm not really sure what your point is as that's a mix of very mainstream (System of a Down), very underground (Norwegian Black Metal), relatively new genres (screamo) and really old-school stuff (Grindcore). So I'm not sure how to answer. But if I had to list the hard rock and metal bands most frequently listened to within our group its probably something like this: Dream Theater, Disturbed, Machine Head, Iron Maiden, Lamb of God, Turisas, Eluveitie, Slayer, Steel Panther, Trivium, Arch Enemy, Sepultura, Motley Crue, Def Leppard, Metallica, Mastodon, Alice in Chains, Avenged Sevenfold, Black Stone Cherry, AC/DC, Guns N' Roses, Soundgarden, Testament, System of a Down, Blind Guardian, Ozzy-era Black Sabbath, Opeth, In Flames, Pantera, Slipknot, Sonata Artica, Rise Against, Rammstein, Rob Zombie, Alter Bridge, Airbourne, Stone Sour, Killswitch Engage, Korn, and maybe 4 or 5 acts local to Birmingham. So an even mix of classics, mainstream stuff from late 90s - mid 00s, and then some folk metal in there too. The band that probably gets the most love is Maiden.

Myself, I'm a bit more interested in the 70s and 80s stuff than they are, but they are normally pretty open minded and will check out anything I point them towards, and anyone new/local/cheap they'll see for curiosity's sake.

[IommiGeezWallofSound]

I respect your passion for any Black Sabbath music. Though, I need to ask, why concern yourself with the opinions of others? And why is it so important that you change anything that might not resemble your opinion?

Well, I guess its a respect thing. Iommi Geezer and Dio put out some of their best work togethet as Black Sabbath. So, Im defending them and their music

[TheElfoid]

Tbh I don't know know what grindcore and screamo really are. I assumed like some of the others that its a new hard screaming type stuff with double bass drumming and blast beats all the way through. Apart from the classics it seems its either that or the technical prog/death stuff all over. I've never been a fan of anything vaguely like Dream Theater, unless you count some 70s prog hence the prejudice.

I sorta know the stuff you're talking about, but grindcore was the wrong word to use . Grindcore dates from the early-mid 1980s....Napalm Death's first album (Scum, 1987) basically marked the start of the genre.

[hammerheart]

First off, I just want to say hi to every one here! This is my first post, but I have been a Sabbath fan since 1992. I like all eras of Sabbath, INCLUDING the Tony martin era, BUT my favorite is the Dio era Sabbath. Therefore, I have been at odds my whole life against the Ozzy era only Sabbath fans. I have never come across a more close minded group of people. I bet that MOST Ozzy fans haven't even given The Mob rules or TYR a chance at all, maybe just one listen. And you know an album can take a few listens to sink in. As a metal fan who likes EVERY genre of metal (black, death, thrash, traditional, NWOBHM, doom, gothic, grindcore, power, progressive) I tend to like the Dio era because with H&H, Iommi got rid of that blues influence (most of it, anyways) that was plaguing the 70's sound. I always just listened to stuff like Iron man, NIB, Into the Void, Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, Sweet Leaf, Snowblind, ect.. So, really, I find that the Dio era Sabbath does have a lot in common with the pure metal songs of 70'S Sabbath. So yes, for me as well, it's hard for me to understand how a fan can like 70's sabbath but at least not the Dio era Sabbath. It's like a metal fan that loves Iron Maiden, but NOT Judas Priest. they're so similar! Yes, you have the right to listen to what you want, but that doesn't mean i have to accept it!!!!!

---------- Post added at 10:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 PM ----------

Oh, and one last thing: the one Dio era Sabbath album I suggest all the Ozzy era fans to check out first would be The Mob Rules. That album was basically MOR with Dio on vocals. Very dark and doomy, as it should have been on H&H. While H&H was an awesome album, I do not find it to be a PURE Sabbath album, but a mix of Sabbath and Rainbow. That was corrected with TMR. TDYK was also in the vein of doomy Sabbath. Dehumaizer however, was different all together. While it had doom elements,to me it was Black Sabbath's Painkiller. Which is a total GOOD thing! Oh, and Dehumanizer, imo, is the best sabbath album to this day. R.I.P. Dio, we miss you man! P.S. I do not mean to insult anyone with the recommendation of checking out TMR. I know most of the Ozzy guys have probally listened to the album. i am just suggesting to REALLY LISTEN to it. Several times more. It may click with you!

[turch118]

They just happen to have something else in common also, namely the same writer and signature sounds from guitarist Tony Iommi. Lineup preferences aside, I can't find myself actually hating anything he has played on guitar, which keeps me from hating or only liking only one particular incarnation of Black Sabbath.

Which incarnation is that Damian???

[ptr]

I really do not think that the musical difference between first legendary Sabbath albums and later stuff is caused by RJD or other Sabbath singers. For me - many songs from "post Ozzy" era have far more classic BS sound than songs from later albums with Ozzy. I would even say that the greatest "return" to that classic sound was with Born Again (probably because of Bill Ward return?)... I think that there are 2 things:
- as Ian Gillan said many times, you can change every player in the band, but the most recognizable part of band is voice - especially in the band which has so unique singer as Ozzy is.... Thats why he said Ozzy is sound of Black Sabbath.... As much as I like IG (for me he´s Singer #1), I do not agree with him in that.
- my opinion is, that sound of classic Sabbath music is made by the cooperation of Tony´s guitar, Geezer´s bass AND Bill´s drums. There is fantastic example for that - compare the Black Sabbath concerts with Tony Martin, when there was Neil Murray and Bobby Rondinelli and then listen to the songs from the concerts which were played with Bill and Geezer.... Really very big difference! I know, Ozzy is very recognizable and inimitable singer, but as I see it.... Band can sound good or bad. They could sound good (meant in the level of their career) or bad - they were able to sound good (I mean accurately) without Ozzy, but they never sound good without Geezer and Bill (again in traditions of BS).... Maybe, just maybe with exception of Bev Bevan (who "captured" the sound of Bill´s drums pretty good).

[black sheep]

I just don't get it. I feel i should sit you down in front of some bose and a big screen, to watch radio city. Please explain what it is you are thinking?

For me it is simple, there is only ONE Black Sabbath, Geezer, Tony, Ozzy, And Bill. All other bands are NOT Black Sabbath. Here is why...

If Dio, Vinnie, Geezer, and Tony are Black Sabbath then why did they tour as Heaven and Hell?

Tony, Geezer, and Bill have all stated at one time or another that Black Sabbath was not to be after they fired Ozzy. It was the record label that forced them into continuing with the Black Sabbath name so they could cash in on that name.

The feel of the band changed dramatically when Dio Joined, that is why Bill left after only one album. Dio did not want to sing songs written by Geezer. Geezer's song writing is far different than the dungons and dragons type of stuff Dio wrote.

All other incarnatons of So-called Black Sabbath were also ment to be Tony Iommie Solo projects and the material is far different then the Original Black Sabbath. Again, record label pressure and management forced or pushed Tony to continue using the Black Sabbath name.

When talking of a Black Sabbath reunion...it is always Ozzy, Tony, Geezer, and Bill. No one talks about the others and rightfully so.

Now, do I like Heaven and Hell...yes, Heaven and Hell and Mob rules are awesome albums, Dehuminizer is ok, The Devil You Know..still out on that one.

Born Again os a pretty good album but, it is NOT Sabbath

All the other so called Sabbath albums, in my opinion suck and I can't even stand to listen to them. I have tried many times but, I just can't stomach them. Sure, they have a few good songs but, they are not Sabbath quality.

The Black Sabbath legecy will always be tarnished in my mind until those other records are properly relabled.

If you don't agree with me fine but, ponder this...Led Zeppelin...did they continue without Bonham...no...and look at there legecy now. Had they continued on without Bonham, Robert Plant most likely would have left as he was already considering it. Instead, they retired the name and there legecy has stood far and above any other band before or since then with the excpetion of one other Band who refused to continue when members left...The Beatles.

[KazolOrajia]

Actually, The Beatles when through a few line-up changes before the famous fab four line-up that everyone knows and love. When drummer Pete Best was replaced, fans would shout 'Pete forever, Ringo never!' at concerts, and now nobody remembers poor Pete. They didn't always have four members either.

Not hating on your opinion, just correcting you.

[black sheep]

Yes, but he was not on any of their originaly released albums. I don't consider members who were tried out in a bands formative years only to be replaced before thier first studio album as "original" members. Many bands hire session or studio musicians in their formative years just to get thier name out knowing it is temporary until a sutible permanent member can be found. They also went through various name changes as well.

John, Paul, George, and Ringo built the Beatles legecy just as Tony, Geezer, Bill, and Ozzy built Sabbaths Legecy.

[Billy Underdog]

I'd say Stu Sutcliffe is a very big part of the Beatles legacy, not their musical, but the historical. Inspiring Lennon in so many ways, the Hamburg years, meeting Astrid Kirchherr who made the original Beatles-"look" and so forth...

[-E5150 StarWanderer-]

For me it is simple, there is only ONE Black Sabbath, Geezer, Tony, Ozzy, And Bill. All other bands are NOT Black Sabbath. Here is why...

If Dio, Vinnie, Geezer, and Tony are Black Sabbath then why did they tour as Heaven and Hell?

Tony, Geezer, and Bill have all stated at one time or another that Black Sabbath was not to be after they fired Ozzy. It was the record label that forced them into continuing with the Black Sabbath name so they could cash in on that name.

The feel of the band changed dramatically when Dio Joined, that is why Bill left after only one album. Dio did not want to sing songs written by Geezer. Geezer's song writing is far different than the dungons and dragons type of stuff Dio wrote.

All other incarnatons of So-called Black Sabbath were also ment to be Tony Iommie Solo projects and the material is far different then the Original Black Sabbath. Again, record label pressure and management forced or pushed Tony to continue using the Black Sabbath name.

When talking of a Black Sabbath reunion...it is always Ozzy, Tony, Geezer, and Bill. No one talks about the others and rightfully so.

Now, do I like Heaven and Hell...yes, Heaven and Hell and Mob rules are awesome albums, Dehuminizer is ok, The Devil You Know..still out on that one.

Born Again os a pretty good album but, it is NOT Sabbath

All the other so called Sabbath albums, in my opinion suck and I can't even stand to listen to them. I have tried many times but, I just can't stomach them. Sure, they have a few good songs but, they are not Sabbath quality.

The Black Sabbath legecy will always be tarnished in my mind until those other records are properly relabled.

If you don't agree with me fine but, ponder this...Led Zeppelin...did they continue without Bonham...no...and look at there legecy now. Had they continued on without Bonham, Robert Plant most likely would have left as he was already considering it. Instead, they retired the name and there legecy has stood far and above any other band before or since then with the excpetion of one other Band who refused to continue when members left...The Beatles.

"It does get confusing that way," Iommi acknowledges. "It really is Black Sabbath, whatever we do. We just choose to go out as Heaven & Hell so everyone knows what they're getting [and] so people won't expect to hear 'Iron Man' and all those songs. We've done them for so many years, it's nice to do just all the stuff with did with Ronnie again."

http://www.eddietrunk.com/index.cfm/...dingbatznj.com

There's the reason for the title of the last Mk II reunion.

And you're fully entitled to your opinion about what's Sabbath and what is not, but your reasoning and argumentation has many holes and inaccuracies. Firstly, it wasn't that Dio didn't want to use Geezer's lyrics, it was actually Geezer who didn't want to write lyrics. He has stated numerous times that he was always a very reluctant lyricist, and that it was a big relief when Dio entered and took the duties of the main lyricist.

But I do agree with you that the post Born Again albums (excluding Cross Purposes, and obviously Dehumanizer) weren't truly Sabbath albums. I'm a firm believer that the duo of Iommi and Geezer are the soul of Sabbath. Here's an old post of mine that I've quoted many times in occasions like this, that explains my views on this very controversial era of Sabbath:

Cross Purposes for me, great album from the songwriting to the performances and production.

While Headless Cross and Eternal Idol are very strong albums, they lack one important factor that Cross Purposes has: the Geezer factor. I've said it to death, but Iommi and Geezer to me are the soul of Sabbath. And like I said, Eternal Idol, Headless Cross - and to a lesser extent TYR - do have great material but they just aren't the real Sabbath to my ears. And as great as those albums are, they pale in comparison with the classic albums from the Ozzy and Dio years. But then again, it is unfair for a majority of the albums in this universe to be compared to those masterpieces This and the fact that Iommi was the only original member left (and hence all the discussion whether those albums are truly Sabbath albums) is why I think those albums would have been received better back then and be considered being better now if they would have been released under a different banner.

Again, I'm repeating the same old mantra that some of you may have heard from me on multiple occasions, so I apologize if I bore you

[black sheep]

...but your reasoning and argumentation has many holes and inaccuracies.

I based my opinion on all that I have heard in interviews with Tony, Geezer, and Bill. Not just one statement that is clearly transparent. As someone who has been in many magazines or online interviews myself, I tend not to trust with 100% accuracy the writen word...I prefer listening to the man/men themselves. I can't tell you how many times I have been misquoted and/or my statements have been misinterpeted.

When and if I ever have the time and desire, I will research and find interviews that back up everything I based my opinions on.

[Tha Beast]

I've battled this battle many times. What it really boils down to is the human psyche and individual tastes/preferences. But one factor that I believe cannot be argued is - any band with multiple lineups is always known for their "definitive" lineup or the lineup that breaks the band to the mainstream. Typically that is a result of the phenomenon that occurs when the right people produce a superior product through pure chemistry. It can be a difficult thing for an individual to wrap his/her head around when their own preferences differ from the mainstream.

A couple of exceptions are notable;

1) when a band loses a member due to death. Fans will typically side with the remaining band members decision to carry on and some will never accept another incarnation. AC/DC is probably the most notable band to do this successfully (with a high profile member). It didn't work so well for The Who and there are bands who decide to not carry on (Zeppelin). Over time I think fans lose conviction and new fans just want to see the band. I know people are probably more susceptible to a Zeppelin reunion today than they were 20 years ago.

2) when a full scale reunion of the "definitive" lineup of a band is possible - that is what the majority of fans will desire. If all members are willing and capable it's almost a mandate. In the case with Queen, I don't consider it very acceptable what Brian and Roger are doing. If Deacon says "no - it's not Queen without Freddie" then I feel Brian and Roger should strongly consider that. Maybe carry on with a different band name that associates them to Queen (ie - Heaven and Hell).

3) Everyone has their own opinion of what the definitive lineup of a band is. Fleetwood Mac fans are divided with the purists preferring the Green era, outcasts preferring the Welch era, and the rest who don't even know there's a Green or Welch era. Deep Purple faces the same dilemma with most enjoying the MKII lineup the most.

Led Zeppelin and the Beatles do probably have the most intact legacy's in place. They have made very careful business decisions regarding this because once a band tarnishes their legacy - it's almost impossible to regain. Black Sabbath is actually the only band I can think of that has the opportunity to pull this off.

I don't personally have any problems with the other Sabbath lineups but it is without doubt that the original band is the definitive lineup that broke the band with their uniqueness. All subsequent lineups offered a more generic product. I actually prefer Tony Martin's efforts "outside" of Sabbath than I do what he did while in the band. That probably has to do with factors that were beyond his control though so I don't blame him or think less of him for that.

[nunoni]

The feel of the band changed dramatically when Dio Joined, that is why Bill left after only one album. Dio did not want to sing songs written by Geezer. Geezer's song writing is far different than the dungons and dragons type of stuff Dio wrote.

The feel of the band had changed dramatically much before that. The feel NSD and TE is not connected, in any way, to the feel of Black Sabbath, Paranoid, or MOTF. In fact, besides being the same guys, I don't see much of a relation.

So that is no argument to say post-Mark I "is not Sabbath".

If Dio, Vinnie, Geezer, and Tony are Black Sabbath then why did they tour as Heaven and Hell?

Errr.... If Dio, Vinnie, Geezer, and Tony are not Black Sabbath then why did they tour as Black Sabbath? They did you know, quite extensively, for several years... hundreds of concerts.

Another argument that carefully picks some data and forgets the inconvenient truth... I could continue, but there really is no point in arguing some things with some people.

[black sheep]

^^^ well your first mistake is trying to argue with ones opinion...that is what this thread is about...peoples opinions.

I also guess you did not read were I stated that management and record label pushed them to continue using the name long after they wanted to. It is called greed and cashing in on a name. Remember who their manager was and what his daughter did to those who made Ozzy what he is today...again greed and money.

I also feel that TE and NSD are some of Sabbaths best work and underrated. To many people want a band to just keep releasing the same album over and over again. They already made Paranoid and MOR...why keep releasing the same stuff...it is called progression.

When Dio joined it was a whole new ball game, different song writer, differnt subjects, different feel altogether, that was part of the reason for Bill's departure. Also, Dio was on a power trip. He has often said a band is a democracy but has to have a leader...he wanted to be the Leader of Black Sabbath...not just a frontman...it shows when he refused to play at Ozzfest. They also could not stay together as a group for more then one album at a time. Yeah, that's a "band"

The fans have also spoke on this. The real Black Sabbath has 5 platinum and 3 gold records out of 8 studio records. All other versions of so-called Sabbath have 1 platinum 2 golds, and 1 silver out of 10 studio records.

Remember, this is my opinion and I am entitled to it just as you are yours. I was happy to see they finally called themselves Heaven and Hell and left the name Black Sabbath to who the real group is. Afterall, they sure didn't rename the Ozzy version now did they...hmmm....wonder why?

Another interesting fact (not really related to Sabbath but still interesting for those who think Dio is better than Ozzy)...Dio has 10 studio albums...only 2 platinum and 1 gold...Ozzy has 11 studio albums...9 are platinum (7 of which are multi-platinum) and 1 gold

Don't get me wrong, I like some of Dio's work but, for me...and again this is my opinion...Ozzy Sabbath is the only Sabbath for me and many of my opinions are based on what I have heard from the 4 masters of metal

[Wicked Cricket]

Becaue in 1972 when I discovered them at 15, they played music no one else even dreamnt of playing, and if you asked 100 people in the street who Ozzy Osbourne was, you'd be lucky to find 10 who knew, and only because they were die hard Sabbath fans. Coming from the ground up so to speak, no other incarnation of BS will ever touch the original. Not to say that Dio's albums H&H and Mob Rules weren't great, but that was gen. II. In my wildest dreams I never thought Ozzy would do anything after he was booted from BS, but little did I know that the next Hard Rock, or rather, the new term, Heavy Metal, was being re-born, and H&H the album along with AC/DC's Back In Black, and Ozzy's diary would lead the way forward.

[-E5150 StarWanderer-]

The fans have also spoke on this. The real Black Sabbath has 5 platinum and 3 gold records out of 8 studio records. All other versions of so-called Sabbath have 1 platinum 2 golds, and 1 silver out of 10 studio records.

True, but it also took longer for Vol.4. and SBS to achieve the platinum certification than H&H, and Sabotage got the gold certification as late as in 1997, whereas Mob Rules was certified gold in 1986. And TE and NSD! got the Gold certification in 1997.

And yes, Ozzy era is the most commercially succesful era, but the Dio led albums were commercially succesful too, Heaven & Hell being one of their best selling albums (3rd best, to be accurate), and mk II is considered as the other classic Sabbath line-up. And even Born Again sold quite well when it was released. The other eras didn't fare too album sales wise, not in the US atleast. But like I said, I don't keep most of them (Cross Purposes excluded) as true Sabbath albums either, so I won't tackle that musical period

Another interesting fact (not really related to Sabbath but still interesting for those who think Dio is better than Ozzy)...Dio has 10 studio albums...only 2 platinum and 1 gold...Ozzy has 11 studio albums...9 are platinum (7 of which are multi-platinum) and 1 gold

But you have to take into consideration that album sales doesn't directly relate to the quality of music. Ozzy became a rock icon, and his image as the madman of rock and roll vas vital to his success after the the first two classic albums. And later on Sharon made Ozzy a media figure who appealed to many people outside of the rock scene, and many of them bought his albums becaus he was "the funny old geezer from the Osbournes". So his music will always sell despite of it's quality. I don't think any of his albums since No More Tears has received positive reviews, while DIO's Magica and Killing The Dragon for an example were warmly received by the fans and critics alike. In a nut shell: Ozzy Osbourne is more than a musician/rock legend, he is a media persona.

And again, you are fully entitled your opinion, but your opinion doesn't change the fact that albums like H&H and Mob Rules are some of the biggest classics in this genre, even if you think they don't deserve the Sabbath name. And it's great that you can still appreciate the music, even if you think the name on the album cover is wrong

This all reminded of a thread about Dehumanizer making a surprise appearance on the Finnish album charts this spring:

http://www.black-sabbath.com/vb/show...er+album+chart

[black sheep]

It still doesn't change the fact that Sabbath and Ozzy (solo) have completely outsold Heaven and Hell (band) and Dio (solo) by a long shot. No matter how you look at it they, Sabbath and Ozzy are more well recieved. I like Dio's voice but, lyrically he just doesn't do it for me 90% of the time.

And again, you are fully entitled your opinion, but your opinion doesn't change the fact that albums like H&H and Mob Rules are some of the biggest classics in this genre, even if you think they don't deserve the Sabbath name.

On this matter my opinion is similar to yours, I agree that HH and Mob Rules are great albums. Without a doubt my favorite Dio voiced material. I just don't consider it Sabbath. I felt this way when they came out and felt vindicated when they decided to call themselves HH. I gained a little more respect for that lineup as a whole and to me the Sabbath name that has been tarnished over the years has regained some respect again. Now if they can just re-label Tony's solo efforts into what they were originally ment to be...damn managment/record labels.

I have said my peace and there is nothing left for me to say, Great conversation, I enjoyed reading other opinions on the matter. Don't want to continue beating a dead horse more than it already has. Enjoy the music!!!

[scorpio 2000]

Tony Iommi had intended for H & H and The Mob Rules to be Sabbath albums. It was only after The Mob Rules that he wanted to get away from the Sabbath name. Because Born Again was not supposed to be a Sabbath album.

[Tha Beast]

Tony Iommi had intended for H & H and The Mob Rules to be Sabbath albums. It was only after The Mob Rules that he wanted to get away from the Sabbath name. Because Born Again was not supposed to be a Sabbath album.

A name change was considered at the time of Heaven and Hell. When Geoff Nichols was playing guitar alongside Iommi and Geezer had not yet rejoined.

[rmdouglas27]

I like, no I love all Sabbath. Now Ozzy's solo stuff I really can't stand.

[DiosSword]

I like all eras, including the Sabbath-that-wasn't-supposed-to-be-Sabbath Glenn Hughes incarnation...I had tickets to see that gig.

The first Sabbath album I heard was Paranoid...my then-girlfriend's uncle had it. I thought it was cool but was too deep into KISS and Hendrix at that time (1979) to take much note.

The first Sabbath album I owned was Heaven And Hell...still my #1 Desert Island Disc. If I had to get rid of all my music collection except one album, that would be it.

The first Ozzy-era album I owned was a cheap NEMS knockoff of Paranoid...I thought "great, but the singer...?"

I think there are several reasons for people liking only the Mk. I lineup, based mostly on age and geography.

Someone who followed the band all through the years from their formation, bought all the albums new, and went to the gigs when they could, I can see how that was a major part of their life and to have anything but that called Black Sabbath can be difficult to accept, though I don't agree with the attitude of "everything but that just SUCKS," especially if they haven't heard it.

Like with Deep Purple, it's hard for me to accept Purple without Ritchie Blackmore. That is no disrespect to Steve Morse. The guy is brilliant, whether with DP, The Dixie Dregs, Kansas or his own band. He's probably the most stylistically-versatile guitarist I can think of, he can do everything from metal to bluegrass effortlessly. I saw him when he was in Kansas. He did the opening set with his band and then did the Kansas set. But I'm not going to say that Purple without Blackmore sucks.

Here in the U.S. it's different, because Ozzy is not just a singer. He is a multimedia superstar. A hell of a lot more people know Ozzy just for being Ozzy than for being the Black Sabbath original singer, and a lot of people think Black Sabbath is/was Ozzy's backing band. Then there are the fanboy types who only think Sabbath did three songs: "War Pigs," "Paranoid," "Iron Man." I don't even bother to try and reason with them.

I like much of what Ozzy has done solo, especially the Randy Rhoads era, but also Bark At The Moon, The Ultimate Sin and No Rest For The Wicked. I kind of lost interest after that.

However, I don't often play his discs around the house, because my wife absolutely hates his voice to the point where it gives her headache (no kidding)...so the Ozzy stuff is mostly for the car deck.

[TheElfoid]

On the whole "definitive line-up" and drummer topic in general, I would rather see Guns N' Roses reunion tour with Matt Sorum than Steven Adler. I like his drumming more, he's in better shape, he's been more consistent over the years, playing big venues is nothing strange for him whereas it is years since Adler has done so and he has experience playing all of GN'R's hits live....Adler only really knows the Appetite stuff.

Now that's out the way, I have a few little things to point out in this thread because there's a few little errors/misleading information in some other people's posts to address:

For me it is simple, there is only ONE Black Sabbath, Geezer, Tony, Ozzy, And Bill. All other bands are NOT Black Sabbath. Here is why...

If Dio, Vinnie, Geezer, and Tony are Black Sabbath then why did they tour as Heaven and Hell?

Legal issues. They wanted to ensure that whatever happened to the Black Sabbath name in the lawsuit with Ozzy, it didn't mean they had to make a name change later, which would be tougher, and it ensured Ozzy could not demand a percentage of profits. It also allowed Ronnie Dio to be a full part of the partnership (from an official, business perspective) without him getting a slice of all Sabbath revenue from then on in.

If you don't agree with me fine but, ponder this...Led Zeppelin...did they continue without Bonham...no...and look at there legecy now. Had they continued on without Bonham, Robert Plant most likely would have left as he was already considering it. Instead, they retired the name and there legecy has stood far and above any other band before or since then with the excpetion of one other Band who refused to continue when members left...The Beatles.

When Page and Plant put out No Quarter: Jimmy Page and Robert Plant Unledded that irked John Paul Jones, who helped to write No Quarter, especially when posters advertising the album and promotional tour carried the tag "Hear the latest evolution of the sound of Led Zeppelin". No one invited him to be involved.

Sure, they didn't call it Led Zeppelin, but using a Zepp reference ("Unledded") and a Zep song name in the album title, along with a tagline that almost says the band is Zeppelin is very, very close.

Not to mention Jimmy Page and JPJ have both said they'd love to reform Led Zeppelin for a tour, its Robert Plant that refuses. He says he doesn't want to retread old ground and that its not what he's into anymore. It is nothing to do with John Bonham.

Heck the band has had 3 one-off reunions now anyway.

Another interesting fact (not really related to Sabbath but still interesting for those who think Dio is better than Ozzy)...Dio has 10 studio albums...only 2 platinum and 1 gold...Ozzy has 11 studio albums...9 are platinum (7 of which are multi-platinum) and 1 gold

I made a post on certifications here years ago. Since then I have taken a huge interest in the way the recording industry works.

Firstly: every country under the sun has its own certifications. The best known and most of-quoted ones are the RIAA, but those only provide information on the USA. For instance Oasis has 6 Platinum discs in the USA, but a mind-bogglin 46 Platinum discs in the UK.

Platinum discs have varying value country to country. In the UK, Silver is 60, 000 units, Gold is 100, 000 units and Platinum is 300, 000. In Sweden I believe you need as little as 30, 000 to obtain a Platinum disc. In the US, 500, 000 is Gold, and 1 million is Platinum. The only really shared rule is an album certified 10x Platinum can also be referred to as a Diamond album. These numbers were invented years ago and are supposedly loosely proportionate to the size of the recording industry in that country (because if every nation used the American thresholds, no albums in Belgium would ever go Platinum probably). This is of course a greatly out of date thing, as economies have developed rapidly in some areas, increasing album sales, while there is a global downward trend in album sales (Van Halen's A Different Kind of Truth is currently outsold by their album with Gary Cherone, Van Halen III).

Certification is based on shipments rather than sales. A lot of Kiss albums shipped Platinum, because 1 million copies were sent to stores, but half of them were sent back to the band after a few weeks. Kiss did this to maintain their claim to having more Gold and Platinum discs in the US than any other band.

Lastly certification is often not up to date. A record label opts to make updates and has to pay to do so. Some are completely up to date - Metallica's Black Album is pretty much on track...I think its at 15x Platinum now in the States and will shortly go 16x Platinum. On the other hand, I read an article a year or so ago (the situation may have been remedied since) stating that their ReLoad album was certified at 3x Platinum despite having sold over 4, 036, 000 copies (and the figure for shipments is always higher than sales, as it includes all the copies sitting in stores and warehouses waiting to be bought by customers).

I may put that into a thread of its own, I think people might find that interesting.

[black sheep]

How can you even put a band like GNR or as I like to call them Sticks and Dandelions in the same catagory as Zeppelin or Sabbath. Probably the most overrated band in the history of bands.

Now that's out the way, I have a few little things to point out in this thread because there's a few little errors/misleading information in some other people's posts to address:

Oh, I'm sorry I thought we were done with this. But, since you felt the need to call me out I will once again entertain the idea of a repsonse especially since you are quoting me out of context.

Legal issues. They wanted to ensure that whatever happened to the Black Sabbath name in the lawsuit with Ozzy, it didn't mean they had to make a name change later, which would be tougher, and it ensured Ozzy could not demand a percentage of profits. It also allowed Ronnie Dio to be a full part of the partnership (from an official, business perspective) without him getting a slice of all Sabbath revenue from then on in.

Please refer to the original days when Ozzy left the band and for a while so did Geezer, Tony himself said that a name change was considered but management and record label pressred them to remain as Black Sabbath...it was never ment to be Sabbath after Ozzy left....anything after the fact is irrelevent

When Page and Plant put out No Quarter: Jimmy Page and Robert Plant Unledded that irked John Paul Jones, who helped to write No Quarter, especially when posters advertising the album and promotional tour carried the tag "Hear the latest evolution of the sound of Led Zeppelin". No one invited him to be involved.

Sure, they didn't call it Led Zeppelin, but using a Zepp reference ("Unledded") and a Zep song name in the album title, along with a tagline that almost says the band is Zeppelin is very, very close.

So what is your point? It is fair to say they are close to Zeppelin since it was two of them. I won't speculate as to why JPJ was not invited because that is between them and quite frankley none of our buisness. FACT remains they did NOT tour as Led Zeppelin, they did NOT record as Led Zeppelin. I do not find offense that they used unledded and I don't think anyone else has. The term unledded implies it is NOT Led Zeppelin even though Plant and Page were involved. There is no confusion and there legecy is intact!!!

Not to mention Jimmy Page and JPJ have both said they'd love to reform Led Zeppelin for a tour, its Robert Plant that refuses. He says he doesn't want to retread old ground and that its not what he's into anymore. It is nothing to do with John Bonham.

Heck the band has had 3 one-off reunions now anyway.

Very true but, who was the drummer going to be...envelope please...Jason BONHAM...son of John...also taught by John...considering it is John's son, someone who grew up around and with Zeppelin, that is the only repectfuly way to do such a reunion without tranishing the Zeppelin name, and I don't think any Zep fan in the universe...including the late JB would be offended. I also doubt the overal sound would at all change...unlike the complete transformation of Ozzy/Dio Sabbath sound not to mention many people feel the same as I do concerning the "new" sabbath.

The three one off-reunions were special occasions and not a way to continue to cash in on a name or legecy (such as in the case of continuing on with the Sabbath name)

Live Aid, all the proceeds were donated and they had "guest drummers" not a permenent replacement
The 40th anniversery part for Atlantic records was done out of respect and gratidtude and also featured Jason Bonham
The Ahmet Ertegün Tribute Concert was once again done out of respect, featured Jason Bonham, and consider this...They hold the record for highest demand for tickets for good reason...they have not watered themselves down with constant lineup changes and false "retirement" tours. There legecy is still intact!!!

I know many people that would not pay...or even go to any other version of Sabbath unless it was the original four

I made a post on certifications here years ago. Since then I have taken a huge interest in the way the recording industry works....

I based it off of US sales and did not go by a bands claime or by records shipped. I went by sales. You can not deny the real Black Sabbath is the most succesful. How many people will say the Heaven and Hell gave birth to Heavy Metal...no that distinction belongs to the one and only Black Sabbath...with Ozzy, Ward, Iommi, and Butler.


Remember these are opinions based on information. If you disagree, that is fine but, if you are going to call someone out...don't misrepresent someones opinions to further your own.

[kamikazetom]

Black Sheep - question - did you used to post here as The Sith Empire? sure sounds like the same arguements Sith used to make. The Elfoid is correct on the way the old record rewards were based on shipments in the pre soundscan era so those gold & platinum awards are not the same as they are now - an example is when Van Halen's diver down came out - the old Record store I worked at ordered 2 boxes of LP's & 2 boxes of cassettes - what Warner sent us was 10 boxes of Lp's & 10 boxes of cassettes to make sure it shipped Platinum - when the LP didn't sell we send back all but 1 box of each but the record was still certified as platinum

[black sheep]

No, this is my first time on this forum.

Blaming the system is a classic way to defend your position or beliefs when it does not agree with you. It still does not change the fact that the original Sabbath is the most successful.

Someone even pointed out that many of their albums did not get gold or platinum status until well after their release. So how many the label shipped is a moot point. Further more look at the peak position the albums made on the charts...again the original Sabbath wins that catagory. Look at the Live albums...Reunion outsold Live Evil. Look at the compilation albums "We sold our soul" outsold them all. Look at the video's "The Black Sabbath Story vol 1" outsold all the others. It is not a coincidence that in EVERY catagory the original line up has the most success.

[-E5150 StarWanderer-]

No, this is my first time on this forum.

Blaming the system is a classic way to defend your position or beliefs when it does not agree with you. It still does not change the fact that the original Sabbath is the most successful.

Someone even pointed out that many of their albums did not get gold or platinum status until well after their release. So how many the label shipped is a moot point. Further more look at the peak position the albums made on the charts...again the original Sabbath wins that catagory. Look at the Live albums...Reunion outsold Live Evil. Look at the compilation albums "We sold our soul" outsold them all. Look at the video's "The Black Sabbath Story vol 1" outsold all the others. It is not a coincidence that in EVERY catagory the original line up has the most success.

No one is trying to say the original line-up isn't the most succesful one, but like I already said, the Dio era was very succesful as well. Heaven & Hell is Sabbath's 3rd best selling album, and H&H and Mob Rules are classic albums in the genre. And "Live From Radio City Music Hall" DVD sold 100,000 copies (Gold Certification) in two months.

And it was I who commented about the albums getting the certifications some 20 years after their release. I said this to show that Mob Rules achieved Gold status in five years, whereas for Sabotage it took 22 years to achieve that feat. You are fully entitled to your opinion and I respect it, but don't try diminish the success of all the post Ozzy material. But hey, atleast you can see past the name issue an enjoy some of the music of the post Ozzy albums Peace!

[LexMoon]

The other voices never worked for me. Guess cause I first heard sabbath with ozzy. Now I just cant imagine anything different and I have tried checking the other encarnations out.

[scorpio 2000]

No one is trying to say the original line-up isn't the most succesful one, but like I already said, the Dio era was very succesful as well. Heaven & Hell is Sabbath's 3rd best selling album, and H&H and Mob Rules are classic albums in the genre. And "Live From Radio City Music Hall" DVD sold 100,000 copies (Gold Certification) in two months.

And it was I who commented about the albums getting the certifications some 20 years after their release. I said this to show that Mob Rules achieved Gold status in five years, whereas for Sabotage it took 22 years to achieve that feat. You are fully entitled to your opinion and I respect it, but don't try diminish the success of all the post Ozzy material. But hey, atleast you can see past the name issue an enjoy some of the music of the post Ozzy albums Peace!

Well said! Its a real shame Dio left after only 2 albums in the early 80s. If Dio stuck around for atleast 3 more albums before he went solo i think Sabbath would have been in good shape during that time. I think they would have been as successful as Iron Maiden and Judas Priest. The mid to late 80s was a great time for metal but it wasnt good for Sabbath.