Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Black Sabbath Vs. Ozzy Round 1 Heaven & Hell Vs. Blizzard of Ozz

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ozzien82
    replied
    Another tough decision. IMO, the original Blizzard is probably Ozzy's best overall after his departure from Sabbath, and Heaven and Hell isn't necessarily the best post-Ozzy Sabbath record. But, and still IMO, No Bone Movies is by far the crappiest song between the two. Maybe this was the final decider for me, Heaven and Hell gets the nod.

    Leave a comment:


  • WarningRules
    replied
    Great posts by the two of you, both of you have valid arguments, however, RLP, I'm really not seeing what you're argument is towards the whole "Ozzy contributed little to none other then his vocals".

    Leave a comment:


  • RLP4ever
    replied
    Originally posted by BooSweeney View Post
    No, I don't feel it was erroneous or exaggerated at all. I try my best to separate Ozzy's actions from my opinions on his work. There's plenty of other musicians and singers I don't particularly like as people based on how they come across sometimes in interviews or their actions toward other band members, but still enjoy (David Coverdale is a good example for me).

    Ozzy is the same way. Yeah, he sounded good on those solo albums, and even sounded ok on the next 4 or so (through No More Tears), but was his sound really that much different from the way he sounded in Sabbath? Not really. Do you think if Ozzy had formed a backing band simliar to that of Sabbath that he would of achieved the same success in the 1980s? Can't say for sure, but I personally doubt it. Those guys were clearly the difference for Ozzy and they gave him a good push in the right direction. The way Rhoads and Daisley wrote music was much different than the build-a-riff construction that Iommi (and sometimes Geezer) used to make songs. It's not like Ozzy developed any new skills that contributed to the success of those albums. I don't recall him doing any vocal training or taking vocal lessons. What did he do differently here that he didn't do for Never Say Die, other than be more interested in the music itself? He pretty much did the same thing and contributed the same way he had always done in the past. So yes, it was a serious suggestion and a valid point.

    Plus, your argument goes both ways...taking Ozzy away and replacing him with someone else might make those records poorer (hard to know for sure, I don't have a time machine to kidnap Ozzy from 1980), but take Rhoads or Daisley away and there's a really good chance the same thing happens. Scratch that. Actually, it did happen...Rhoads was taken away and Daisley was sent away, and that shows in the rest of his albums. They are ok...but none of them ever were as good as those first two.

    And besides, if Ozzy didn't sing on those records and someone else had, this whole debate between BoO and H&H would be a moot point, as there would be no commonality between the two to compare them in the first place...even if BoO without Ozzy was, in fact, a poorer record.
    Good to know that you are somebody that can separate your personal prejudices regarding Ozzy's personality and actions, from your estimation of his musical/career credentials. Not everybody, not least many people on this board, apparently, can do that. Dave Coverdale springs to your mind, eh? What about another notorious example: Dave Mustaine?

    Anyway, I'd maintain that I do find exaggerated and awry, your previous comments that clearly implied Ozzy made no real difference at all to the quality and success of his early solo records. That is almost exactly akin to what I've been seeing some people in the forums constantly say lately about how in the '70s, Ozzy was basically dispensable, in the vein of "aw, anybody else could have taken his place and done what he did" with Sabbath. Similarly, I find it highly disingenuous to see you somehow insist that Ozzy was basically the same old, ordinary lead singer that lent precious little to his band, qualitatively. And I reject the notion that Ozzy had to somehow literally reinvent himself as a singer, learn 'new skills' take 'vocal training and lessons' as you seem to expect. Besides, if you reckon that he did pretty much the same stuff, vocally, that he had previously been there, done that with Black Sabbath, gosh, I'd say that is a marvellous thing. That can hardly be a knock on Ozzy's abilities or talents as frontman/singer. Ozzy was inimitably outstanding with Sabbath, so I'd have no problem with him keeping some of that vocal magic intact, on his solo outings. Of course, you're onto something when you say that Ozzy's backing musicians brought a visible departure from the past, with a very sharply different musical approach than what Ozzy had previously been involved with Iommi and Co. in Sabbath. And I'd maintain that the first few Ozzy albums outdid Dio-Sabbath's own first three. Later, even second-rate Ozzy records were at least more tolerable than the TM-era Sabbath had to offer. That's just always been my view on this matter. And no, you don't need a time machine to contemplate or find firm proof (and I have none, I admit) that without Ozzy, the others would have made a poorer, lesser band. It was just my personal contention of how I think that Ozzy's vocals meant a lot and made a difference to what his band-mates were trying to achieve, and ultimately accomplished, on record. Heck, without Ozzy, we wouldn't have a Blizzard of Ozz, much less the OZZY OSBOURNE band boasting the likes of Randy Rhoads and the rest.

    Look, Boo, I can't and won't dispute the huge difference that a truly stellar crew of Rhoads/Daisley/Kerslake made initially to resurrect Ozzy's career and make the OZZY band such a terrific force, at the time. I can't think of many of Ozzy's peers (not Gillan, Plant, Coverdale, certainly not RJD, and there are more) that had been singularly blessed with such superb musicians, and guys that were actually able to pull off top-notch song-writing and musicianship for Ozzy. But there's no getting away from the fact that Ozzy's singing sure helped too, to make his solo band's early records so fantastic. Even Zakk and Jake (regardless of my not being a huge fan of either) contributed a lot with their guitars to Ozzy's records. Fact is, Ozzy always had decent-to-great backing bands in his solo career. I'm the first to admit that some of his latter solo records don't remotely rival the sheer quality of his early records. Sure, that has as much to do with some of the utterly mediocre song-writing and inconsistencies of the then-bands as it has to do with their musical approach, Ozzy's own decline, and other factors that must have played a part in the drop-off in form.


    Lastly, I agree that something like H&H vs Blizzard of Ozz or Mob Rules vs Diary of a Madman have the loaded poignancy they do, because Ozzy happened to be on those two latter records, in these match-offs. Otherwise, we'd be comparing maybe a new-look, revamped Quiet Riot albums vs Black Sabbath w/Dio albums.

    Leave a comment:


  • BooSweeney
    replied
    Originally posted by RLP4ever View Post
    Boo, I don't think I know you at all, or at least don't seem to remember you---and that Born Again avatar has been spectacularly common in these forums. LOL

    But, I appreciate (even agree with some of) your comments, nevertheless.

    However, regardless of your negative feelings about and critical comments about Ozzy, his actions etc etc, I just think you made a mighty exaggerated, erroneous statement of your own, right here. Are you seriously suggesting that Ozzy made no difference at all to the quality of some of his solo albums----indeed especially Blizzard and Diary?? Alright, I reckon we have to disagree here hugely, because I just always thought that Ozzy definitely sounded superb with his singing, throughout both those classic albums. And that counts for a lot, in my book. Without Ozzy's vocals, Blizzard and Diary---and any one of his better solo records from his discography----would have been poorer, lesser records, no question.
    No, I don't feel it was erroneous or exaggerated at all. I try my best to separate Ozzy's actions from my opinions on his work. There's plenty of other musicians and singers I don't particularly like as people based on how they come across sometimes in interviews or their actions toward other band members, but still enjoy (David Coverdale is a good example for me).

    Ozzy is the same way. Yeah, he sounded good on those solo albums, and even sounded ok on the next 4 or so (through No More Tears), but was his sound really that much different from the way he sounded in Sabbath? Not really. Do you think if Ozzy had formed a backing band simliar to that of Sabbath that he would of achieved the same success in the 1980s? Can't say for sure, but I personally doubt it. Those guys were clearly the difference for Ozzy and they gave him a good push in the right direction. The way Rhoads and Daisley wrote music was much different than the build-a-riff construction that Iommi (and sometimes Geezer) used to make songs. It's not like Ozzy developed any new skills that contributed to the success of those albums. I don't recall him doing any vocal training or taking vocal lessons. What did he do differently here that he didn't do for Never Say Die, other than be more interested in the music itself? He pretty much did the same thing and contributed the same way he had always done in the past. So yes, it was a serious suggestion and a valid point.

    Plus, your argument goes both ways...taking Ozzy away and replacing him with someone else might make those records poorer (hard to know for sure, I don't have a time machine to kidnap Ozzy from 1980), but take Rhoads or Daisley away and there's a really good chance the same thing happens. Scratch that. Actually, it did happen...Rhoads was taken away and Daisley was sent away, and that shows in the rest of his albums. They are ok...but none of them ever were as good as those first two.

    And besides, if Ozzy didn't sing on those records and someone else had, this whole debate between BoO and H&H would be a moot point, as there would be no commonality between the two to compare them in the first place...even if BoO without Ozzy was, in fact, a poorer record.

    Leave a comment:


  • RLP4ever
    replied
    Originally posted by nunoni
    hmm, is this the second time we actually agree on something ?! Hei mate, must be something wrong with us! We normally agree to disagree!

    But saying that solo Ozzy is not metal really is beyond the pale.
    Don't worry, mate. I notice how you neatly left out an important portion of my earlier statement from your quote in your reply to me. And it isn't any secret that we disagree on that particular point, don't we? ....Besides, you probably both agree/disagree with me more often than you care to post here about it, right?

    Anyway, I just had to point out that Warning's comments about Ozzy's solo stuff being "not even hard rock, let alone metal" was something I found stupendously silly, that's all. No big deal, Warning and I just wholly disagree on that.

    Originally posted by Warning Rules
    Sure, I may have taken it a bit far by saying they weren't hard rock. But there's nothing that I've listened to so far that would lead me to believe that Ozzy solo was metal.

    I'm certain that our definitions of metal are different.
    Oh yeah, you took it way too far out of town with that comment. Btw, I just wanted to point out that Ozzy solo doesn't even necessarily have to be 'metal' to be any genuinely good, cool and enjoyable. Of course, it's another different story that I consider Ozzy solo to be metal, but you just don't..and never did.

    As for 'our' definitions of 'metal' being 'different'.. haha...I'm dead-sure about it too. It has to be so. Don't even start me talkin'....Lol


    Originally posted by BooSweeney
    The reason those solo albums are good though aren't because of him anyway...but of the other three guys that played on them
    Boo, I don't think I know you at all, or at least don't seem to remember you---and that Born Again avatar has been spectacularly common in these forums. LOL

    But, I appreciate (even agree with some of) your comments, nevertheless.

    However, regardless of your negative feelings about and critical comments about Ozzy, his actions etc etc, I just think you made a mighty exaggerated, erroneous statement of your own, right here. Are you seriously suggesting that Ozzy made no difference at all to the quality of some of his solo albums----indeed especially Blizzard and Diary?? Alright, I reckon we have to disagree here hugely, because I just always thought that Ozzy definitely sounded superb with his singing, throughout both those classic albums. And that counts for a lot, in my book. Without Ozzy's vocals, Blizzard and Diary---and any one of his better solo records from his discography----would have been poorer, lesser records, no question.
    Last edited by RLP4ever; 07-06-2009, 08:51 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • WarningRules
    replied
    Originally posted by RLP4ever View Post
    Somehow the comparison between Ozzy solo and Dio-Sabbath here is actually inevitable, in a sense. You seemed to imply that Ozzy had lost his 'metal' credentials when he was no longer in Sabbath. Besides, Ozzy's first two blockbuster, brilliant solo albums coincided with Dio-Sabbath's own twin outings, '80 and '81, respectively. I couldn't help but suggest that, in my view, Blizzard and Diary, both sounded classier, cooler 'metal' albums than H&H and MR. Earlier, you had incredulously dismissed the very notion that Ozzy had anything 'metal' after exiting Sabbath. Now you go even further over the cliff in claiming, bizarrely beyond belief, that Ozzy solo wasn't even 'hard rock' ...Warning, this is stretching credulity and old-fashioned common sense, much less musical sense, to breaking point.
    Sure, I may have taken it a bit far by saying they weren't hard rock. But there's nothing that I've listened to so far that would lead me to believe that Ozzy solo was metal.

    I'm certain that our definitions of metal are different.

    ---------- Post added at 04:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ----------

    Originally posted by BooSweeney View Post

    Three tracks from H&H (the title track, Die Young, and Neon Knights) are head and shoulders above ANYTHING on BoO.
    I'll agree with that.


    Originally posted by BooSweeney View Post
    That being said, the whole of BoO is a more cohesive album with a better collection of songs.
    I'll agree that BoO is a lot more consistent, but the level of music being played just... well, to be Frank, it isn't good enough for me.

    Originally posted by BooSweeney View Post
    I hate Ozzy for what he's doing now, and I also recognize that he didn't do much on BoO or Diary. The reason those solo albums are good though aren't because of him anyway...but of the other three guys that played on them. I'm not sure why some of you hard-core Iommi fans of H&H and at least see it from that point of view.
    I'll agree 100% with this.

    Originally posted by BooSweeney View Post


    Saying BoO isn't metal or is just an average album really isn't being objective. Nor is saying that BoO is vastly superior to H&H (the glass jaw statement...really?!)...because it certainly isn't that either.
    Both of those seem pretty subjective so me :S

    Leave a comment:


  • BooSweeney
    replied
    Ok, I couldn't resist holding off a comment any longer.

    I'm amazed at the polarity in this thread from both sides. Some of you know me and some of you don't, and that really doesn't matter now, but here's how I see the two albums.

    Three tracks from H&H (the title track, Die Young, and Neon Knights) are head and shoulders above ANYTHING on BoO. That being said, the whole of BoO is a more cohesive album with a better collection of songs. Those words are coming from one of Iommi's biggest supporters, and a very adamant Sabbath fan of all eras. I hate Ozzy for what he's doing now, and I also recognize that he didn't do much on BoO or Diary. The reason those solo albums are good though aren't because of him anyway...but of the other three guys that played on them. I'm not sure why some of you hard-core Iommi fans of H&H and at least see it from that point of view.

    To further elaborate, the only song I don't like on BoO is "No Bone Movies". Don't ask me why, I just find it boring. H&H though has "Walk Away", which might be the worst Dio-penned Sabbath song, and"Wishing Well" and "Lady Evil" are a bit generic. They are ok songs, but they aren't better than anything on BoO. H&H has some amazing points and really low points, and BoO is a consistently great album.

    That's how I see it. Anyone that knows me knows I'm pretty hard on Ozzy because of his actions and a lot of the stereotypes and the ever-increasing amount of fanboi-ism, but to say BoO isn't metal or is just an average album really isn't being objective. Nor is saying that BoO is vastly superior to H&H (the glass jaw statement...really?!)...because it certainly isn't that either.

    And that's all I have to say about that.
    Last edited by BooSweeney; 07-06-2009, 12:22 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • nunoni
    replied
    Originally posted by RLP4ever View Post
    Somehow the comparison between Ozzy solo and Dio-Sabbath here is actually inevitable, in a sense. You seemed to imply that Ozzy had lost his 'metal' credentials when he was no longer in Sabbath. (...) Earlier, you had incredulously dismissed the very notion that Ozzy had anything 'metal' after exiting Sabbath. Now you go even further over the cliff in claiming, bizarrely beyond belief, that Ozzy solo wasn't even 'hard rock' ...Warning, this is stretching credulity and old-fashioned common sense, much less musical sense, to breaking point.
    hmm, is this the second time we actually agree on something ?! Hei mate, must be something wrong with us! We normally agree to disagree!

    But saying that solo Ozzy is not metal really is beyond the pale.

    Leave a comment:


  • RLP4ever
    replied
    Originally posted by WarningRules View Post
    Without getting into comparison between Ozzy solo and Dio sabbath, I have no doubt in my mind that Ozzy played rock after he left Sabbath.

    Not even hard rock, let alone metal of any kind.

    Somehow the comparison between Ozzy solo and Dio-Sabbath here is actually inevitable, in a sense. You seemed to imply that Ozzy had lost his 'metal' credentials when he was no longer in Sabbath. Besides, Ozzy's first two blockbuster, brilliant solo albums coincided with Dio-Sabbath's own twin outings, '80 and '81, respectively. I couldn't help but suggest that, in my view, Blizzard and Diary, both sounded classier, cooler 'metal' albums than H&H and MR. Earlier, you had incredulously dismissed the very notion that Ozzy had anything 'metal' after exiting Sabbath. Now you go even further over the cliff in claiming, bizarrely beyond belief, that Ozzy solo wasn't even 'hard rock' ...Warning, this is stretching credulity and old-fashioned common sense, much less musical sense, to breaking point.

    Leave a comment:


  • nunoni
    replied
    Originally posted by WarningRules View Post
    Without getting into comparison between Ozzy solo and Dio sabbath, I have no doubt in my mind that Ozzy played rock after he left Sabbath.

    Not even hard rock, let alone metal of any kind.
    well, not being a fan of solo Ozzy, Mr Crowley is in my top 10 of "greatest metal songs ever". Well, maybe top 20, but up there with the best for sure.

    Leave a comment:


  • WarningRules
    replied
    Originally posted by RLP4ever View Post


    Oh well, I've never had any such doubt how actually Ozzy did far classier 'metal' than what Sabbath did without him, in '80 and '81, for starters.
    Without getting into comparison between Ozzy solo and Dio sabbath, I have no doubt in my mind that Ozzy played rock after he left Sabbath.

    Not even hard rock, let alone metal of any kind.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rules Mob
    replied
    Blizzard might be the apex of Ozzy's career. It's one of my favorite albums by anyone. Unfortunately, it's up against what is one of maybe 5 albums in the world that can beat it. Revelation (Mother Earth) is the album's weakest track, although it's by no means "weak" in the traditional sense. H&H has no weak tracks.

    Leave a comment:


  • nunoni
    replied
    H&H, any doubts?

    Leave a comment:


  • AngryHeart
    replied
    Two great albums, but Heaven & Hell is better.

    Leave a comment:


  • joan
    replied
    Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Its Heaven and Hell that win in my opinion. At least the guys in Heaven and Hell have class Ozzy has lost his mind with this stupid lawsuit. Besides RJD has a far superior voice than Ozzy.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X