Announcement

Collapse

Logins with New Software

If you are having problems staying logged in since the Jan 15 change to the new version of vBulletin, please go to your browser's configuration area, and delete the cookies for this website, and reboot your browser.

-- Joe
See more
See less

Heaven and Hell vs. Blizzard of Ozz

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

  • #31
    Heaven & Hell for me.

    There are no songs as powerful and epic as Heaven & Hell, Die Young, or Neon Knights on Blizzard..

    In fact, if Heaven & Hell were only those three songs I'd still love it more than BOO.

    Not that Blizzard is a bad record by any means. Crazy Train and Suicide Solution are good songs.

    But damn.. I think I can listen to Heaven & Hell over and over again and never get tired of it. It's just that good.
    "...live for today, tomorrow never comes..."

    Comment


    • #32
      Blizzard of Ozz is a fabulous album!

      But I voted for Heaven & Hell because it is the album I'd much rather listen to.
      "I've seen the future and I've left it behind"

      Comment


      • #33
        I went for Heaven and Hell. As cool as my two favorites from Blizzard, Crazy Train and Revelation (Mother Earth) are, they are nowhere as good as Heaven and Hell and Neon Knights. Those two tracks alone put H&H above Blizzard for me.
        "The lover of life's not a sinner
        The ending is just a beginner
        The closer you get to the meaning
        The sooner you know that you're dreaming..."

        RIP Ronnie James Dio

        Comment


        • #34
          Two of them are great albums.

          That Apples and Oranges one, on the other hand, did nothing for me.

          Comment


          • #35
            I love Blizzard BUT, I agree with an earlier point made. The first time you listen to Blizzard, it blows you away but for me it soon worn off whereas most of the songs on H&H can be like a slap (a good slap) in the face everytime you hear it like MOR, niehter of them are my favourite albums but songs like Into the Void and Children of the Grave or Heaven and Hell and Children of the Sea are well, epic.

            As for Tony vs Randy, I think RR is an amazingly talented player. He is very technical and came out with some amazing riffs and licks but Tony's playing is just.. ... ... I can think of the right word to descirbe it! IMO he has SOOO much more feeling and creativity. The structure of his riffs and songs are addictive and very memorable whilst being able to satisfy the needs of those who like to here some good playing techniques. Like Iron Man for example is a riff known to everyone who has a life but when listened to by a rock or heavy metal fan can be appreciated. Maybe I am just too bias to Tony because he is my hero
            Last edited by BackStreetKid; 11-24-2010, 06:33 AM.
            Won't you help me Mr. Jesus?

            Comment


            • #36
              I voted Blizzard, since it is a 10/10 album all around.

              Heaven and Hell, on the other hand, has 3 great tracks; Neon Knights, Die Young, and Lonely is the Word. Every other song is spotty at best, and while I like the fast part of the title track, everything before it is absolutely yawn-inducing. Not only that but it spawned the utterly repulsive practice of stretching it to 20+ agonizing minutes during live shows.

              Originally posted by AngryHeart View Post
              That Apples and Oranges one, on the other hand, did nothing for me.
              Lmfao!! Well played, sir!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Monster Boy View Post
                That's the spirit Fondula! "intangibles" is usually a word we use when we can't put our finger on something, but hey, at least you tried! Crazy Train has been played to death, you're right. When I first heard it I thought it was the shiznitz, of course I was probably like 6 or 7 then
                Hey monster boy... Heaven and hell is better because "it just fucking is OK"
                All good things

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by MH1986 View Post
                  Whoops my bad, I meant infinitely, lol. Thanks.

                  As for Iommi, and Rhoads. Rhoads was a much flashier player. However Iommi plays with much greater feel than Rhoads, thats not saying Rhoads didn't but Iommi more so...
                  Randy Rhoads is one of my favorite guitarists but Iommi is #1 in my book. Then again I'll take a great blues guitarist over a neoclassical shredder any day. Rhoads died before he could progress to the level of the greats, had he lived he could very well be up there but as great as he was he was still developing. He had unlimited potential but died before it could ultimately be realized.
                  I think you are selling Randy short...as for taking a great blues guitarist over a 'neoclassical shredder', I'm not sure which way I'd go on that. Certainly Randy would have become even better known regardless of whether or not he'd stayed with Ozzy for much longer.

                  Ted

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Hey Monster Boy, believe me, we've had just these same album face-offs, even polls, in the past, with some very animated, even acrimonious, give-n-take between members with strident stances on the issue.

                    That said, since we're in the here and now, I definitely vote for Blizzard.

                    It's a truly stunningly cool album and a keeper for all fans of Ozzy at the artistic acme of his solo career. I think I love BoO from start to finish, even the much-maligned 'Goodbye to Romance' or the over-played killer hits like Crazy Train, I Don't Know, Suicide Solution etc...I just know that I still love even the over-exposed, ubiquitous songs on Blizzard, and unlike for a few people here, BoO has actually 'aged' just fine, to me. Ozzy sounded rejuvenated, exuding an energy, confidence and joy that lent an infectiously cool vibe to the entire record of catchy as fuck, rocking tunes. Randy was a boy wonder on lead guitar, some shyness, some swagger, lots of feeling and conviction in his playing-----all of which, incidentally, were upped further on the even better Diary of a Madman album. I don't even mind some of the seemingly lightweight lyrics on BoO; they certainly came across as refreshingly direct and sincere. The bass playing was busy and impressive, all along..and the drumming starred in its expert anchoring of the sound of the playing of the rest of the band. Ozzy's mastery of the vocals, innate knack for emotion in his singing, the vocal harmonies etc....helped make the songs sound even cooler than they would have been with a far more controlled, more stereotypical heavy metal singer.
                    Overall, Blizzard is a bombshell and I'd argue has always been rated fairly---never overly so.

                    I'd hate to rehash all the stuff I've ever said in the forums about the Dio-Sabbath debut 'Heaven and Hell', but I'd just say that I've always found H&H to be a hugely over-hyped, over-rated, dull dud of an album. The lyrics were especially lame, the playing was pretty pedestrian, the whole band sounded like a mere shadow of its former self; so dramatic was the transformation from the ton-heavy, sludgy, doomy, classic heavy metal of the '70s incarnation of the band, to this suddenly extremely slick, faster, more melodic, more atmospheric, indeed rather generic '80s heavy metal. Half of H&H was utterly insipid rock tunes, and the remainder had only very fleeting cool moments, but mostly rather forgettable songs, overall. The entire album sounded somewhat formulaic, unimaginative cautious and just dreadfully dull. I liked the follow-up Mob Rules a lot better, for some reasons.

                    Anyway, I probably can't be any clearer about the why and how of my blatant, continuing preference for something like Bliizzard of Ozz to the highly-rated, but highly second-rate Heaven and Hell album.
                    "Actors really are the scum of the earth. Their behavior makes arrogant, overpaid rock stars appear positively noble' - Buzz Osborne

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Iommi vs Rhodes, well they approach the guitar from 2 entirly different styles, Tony's a blues player, like all his English peers of that era, Randy was a classical trained player, they're both supuerb players, but their styles are not apples to apples. I prefer blues players because they attack the heart and gut, the Van Halen / Rhodes styles are all head...
                      Last edited by Wicked Cricket; 11-24-2010, 01:12 PM.
                      "Music is so sacred to me that I canít hear wishy-washy nonsense just played for the sake of selling records."
                      R. Blackmore

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by hipster doofus View Post
                        LMAO! I always loved this reasoning. "Sabbath was too heavy to be as popular as Ozzy."

                        I guess it was Metallica's light hearted, toe tappin' beats that launched them in the 80's as Sabbath spiraled into commercial oblivion.....

                        Actually, yes, that is exactly it on the Mettalica front. Did you not notice the change in style from "....and Justice For All" to "Metallica" (Black Album) and beyond. Metallica became a hard rock band. Particulaarly with "Load" and "Re-Load." Companred to Megadeth, who tasted commercial success, but not in the vain as Met, due to staying more true to metal roots, and not making commercially acceptable music. Same goes for Ozzy.

                        IMO, this is not a slam on anyone, it is just stating the facts.

                        Top of page 2!
                        "I can honestly say itís truly been an honor to play at his side for all these years, his music will live on forever." ~ Tony Iommi (Speaking of Ronnie James Dio)

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Wicked Cricket View Post
                          Iommi vs Rhodes, well they approach the guitar from 2 entirly different styles, Tony's a blues player, like all his English peers of that era, Randy was a classical trained player, they're both supuerb players, but their styles are not apples to apples. I prefer blues players because they attack the heart and gut, the Van Halen / Rhodes styles are all head...
                          Everybody has their preferences, I won't begrudge you that. But the idea that blues is all from the gut and VanHalen/Rhoads were all head, I have to disagree there. There is plenty of "emotion" in Randy's playing, as with Eddie's. Listen to the solo for "Goodbye to Romance" and tell me there is no "feeling" there! Now listen to the solo for Neon Knights...Iommi was trying to be flahier than Rhoads was, he just didn't have the wide array of tricks in his arsenal and didn't pull it off as well. Don't get me wrong, Iommi is a great player in his own right, and he had brilliant moments through his career, I love his lead work on Vol. IV and SBS in particular, but on the H&H album...not his shining moment, he was trying to be like Eddie I think. Just because somebody knows more scales and can play faster doesn't mean they have no feeling in their playing, just like just because somebody only knows the pentatonic scale doesn't mean everything they play is chock full of emotions.

                          Now the whole Randy was too young thing that somebody else mentioned, just how old was Tony Iommi when they released Paranoid? 22 or something right?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by H&H View Post
                            Actually, yes, that is exactly it on the Mettalica front. Did you not notice the change in style from "....and Justice For All" to "Metallica" (Black Album) and beyond. Metallica became a hard rock band. Particulaarly with "Load" and "Re-Load." Companred to Megadeth, who tasted commercial success, but not in the vain as Met, due to staying more true to metal roots, and not making commercially acceptable music. Same goes for Ozzy.

                            IMO, this is not a slam on anyone, it is just stating the facts.

                            Top of page 2!
                            I don't think Megadeth stayed true to their Metal roots with Risk that is for sure!!!!
                            Religion won't save me
                            The damage is done
                            The future has ended
                            Before it's begun
                            - Damaged Soul - Black Sabbath

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Quote:
                              Originally Posted by hipster doofus
                              LMAO! I always loved this reasoning. "Sabbath was too heavy to be as popular as Ozzy."

                              I guess it was Metallica's light hearted, toe tappin' beats that launched them in the 80's as Sabbath spiraled into commercial oblivion.....


                              Then H&H said:

                              Actually, yes, that is exactly it on the Mettalica front. Did you not notice the change in style from "....and Justice For All" to "Metallica" (Black Album) and beyond. Metallica became a hard rock band. Particulaarly with "Load" and "Re-Load."

                              The Black Album didn't launch Metallica's career in the 80s, your response didn't actually respond to what Hipster said.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by H&H View Post
                                Actually, yes, that is exactly it on the Mettalica front. Did you not notice the change in style from "....and Justice For All" to "Metallica" (Black Album) and beyond. Metallica became a hard rock band. Particulaarly with "Load" and "Re-Load." Companred to Megadeth, who tasted commercial success, but not in the vain as Met, due to staying more true to metal roots, and not making commercially acceptable music. Same goes for Ozzy.

                                IMO, this is not a slam on anyone, it is just stating the facts.

                                Top of page 2!
                                No, it's not a slam. Sales are sales, no matter how they're reached, I guess. I just never understood the reasoning. Yes, Metallica's transformation is beyond obvious. But that's why I specifically mentioned 80's, before the juggernaut Black Album. Master of Puppets reached #29 in the US and went gold with virtually no real support. In 1986? The land of glam? With that title track as a single? I mean, if that's not pure heavy metal... Same goes for Megadeth. Rust In Peace reached top 20's I believe with Holy Wars as a single.

                                Those are just 2 quality examples of many. With that, I just can't buy into the whole "too heavy to sell." It's just not true. There were plenty quality heavy albums reaching many people at the same time Sabbath was struggling.

                                Why did Sabbath struggle through the 80's and early 90's? I don't know. I loved Eternal Idol and Headless Cross. I'm sure there are dozens of theories. But I really, really don't think being too heavy is a logical one.
                                ***Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of other internet people, the internet police or the internet in general. It is to be assumed that all sentences are automatically followed by "IMO, BUDDY" as to not offend other internet people and start an internet fight.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X