Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why I Quit Bloody Sabbath

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

  • Why I Quit Bloody Sabbath

    Here's a short article from April 1983:




  • #2
    Great read Roller, thanks!
    "Without Black Sabbath there never would have been an Ozzy, and without Ozzy there never would have been a Black Sabbath"
    "If there ever was a band whose voice is so significant and distinct, that band is Black Sabbath and the voice is Ozzy Osbourne"
    ________________________________________OzzyIsDio_ (YoY)

    Comment


    • #3
      Cool article. Now we need one for the split after Dehumanizer.
      Monty Python and the Holy Grail pic extravaganza! http://www.black-sabbath.com/vb/showthread.php?t=31523

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Icy Sun View Post
        Cool article. Now we need one for the split after Dehumanizer.
        Wow, I knew they were quarrelling, but apparently it was even worse than I thought. Thanks a lot, Roller!

        Comment


        • #5
          Again, yet another story in Sabbath's history that has conveniently changed over time, by the band itself. When Dehumanizer came out in 1992 that was the VERY first time most of us heard that the above "story" was made up by... a drunk engineer? Really? Give me a break ()!

          Furthermore, they had the audacity to repeat this when they reconvened as Heaven & Hell. Just another example of Sabbath insulting the fans' intelligence over the years ().

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by A Sabbath Historian View Post
            Again, yet another story in Sabbath's history that has conveniently changed over time, by the band itself. When Dehumanizer came out in 1992 that was the VERY first time most of us heard that the above "story" was made up by... a drunk engineer? Really? Give me a break ()!

            Furthermore, they had the audacity to repeat this when they reconvened as Heaven & Hell. Just another example of Sabbath insulting the fans' intelligence over the years ().
            Perfect post.

            Comment


            • #7
              History tends to be manufactured to suit PR needs...

              Comment


              • #8
                I think it can be said in fairness that Ronnie could get very angry and say things that he would later see differently or at least be at peace with. Most of us have probably done the same.

                He has said far worse things about Ritchie Blackmore than Tony or Geezer, and yet in this interview he seems to suggest that he and Blackmore never had problems of the kind he was having with Tony and Geezer.

                No matter whose "fault" it was, Sabbath Mark II blew it, IMO. They had something truly special going. And had they continued, the band would have eventually been held in regard that was commensurate with the original band. Not that they are far from that, but they could have been there in full, even if reunions with Ozzy had happened as they have.

                I'm not sure I buy the idea that it was strictly "PR" to put the Live Evil mixing period to rest. And certainly I don't see that as an insult to fans (what?). Instead, I think they realized that certain people were in between their direct communication at that time. That instead of hashing things out there was too much stock put into what someone else said was being said. If they let some blame be put on someone else I suspect it was because they all wanted to let that period go. They knew what they had was absolutely mind blowing. And when they reunited for Dehumanizer I think they had to on some level let bygones be bygones.
                "It is not opinion that Ozzy peaked on Sabotage, it is a measurable fact."
                -WTB

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jeff View Post
                  I think it can be said in fairness that Ronnie could get very angry and say things that he would later see differently or at least be at peace with. Most of us have probably done the same.

                  He has said far worse things about Ritchie Blackmore than Tony or Geezer, and yet in this interview he seems to suggest that he and Blackmore never had problems of the kind he was having with Tony and Geezer.

                  No matter whose "fault" it was, Sabbath Mark II blew it, IMO. They had something truly special going. And had they continued, the band would have eventually been held in regard that was commensurate with the original band. Not that they are far from that, but they could have been there in full, even if reunions with Ozzy had happened as they have.

                  I'm not sure I buy the idea that it was strictly "PR" to put the Live Evil mixing period to rest. And certainly I don't see that as an insult to fans (what?). Instead, I think they realized that certain people were in between their direct communication at that time. That instead of hashing things out there was too much stock put into what someone else said was being said. If they let some blame be put on someone else I suspect it was because they all wanted to let that period go. They knew what they had was absolutely mind blowing. And when they reunited for Dehumanizer I think they had to on some level let bygones be bygones.
                  To reiterate Jeff, the Live Evil story is an absolute embarrassment and insult to fans' INTELLIGENCE. However, I do agree with you on one thing-- the Dio era indeed "blew it"--- with those lame stories (). Respect.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by A Sabbath Historian View Post
                    To reiterate Jeff, the Live Evil story is an absolute embarrassment and insult to fans' INTELLIGENCE. However, I do agree with you on one thing-- the Dio era indeed "blew it"--- with those lame stories (). Respect.
                    Care to elaborate on how exactly something interpersonal between the band members (whatever happened) could insult the intelligence of fans?

                    I remember when the reunion happened. And I'm quite sure I remember Geezer saying something to the effect that they realized they had made mistakes in communication before. Including putting too much stock in what other people were saying about each other instead of working it out directly.

                    So what exactly would be the point of Geezer saying this unless it were true? Or at least the way they got past what had happened. I don't know ... but the notion that the band concocted this idea that others were influencing things seems a bit like just trying to fill in something that doesn't need to be filled in. Whatever happened, the band got past it, put out a killer album and played to legions of fans all over the world. I guess I don't get why I as a fan should feel insulted even if they sugarcoated things a bit and chose not get into every detail of their own issues between each other.
                    "It is not opinion that Ozzy peaked on Sabotage, it is a measurable fact."
                    -WTB

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I will say that if, at some point, one of them blamed the Live Evil fiasco on a "drunk engineer" then that just seems stupid. Who was it that said this? Any link to a quote?
                      "It is not opinion that Ozzy peaked on Sabotage, it is a measurable fact."
                      -WTB

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jeff View Post
                        Care to elaborate on how exactly something interpersonal between the band members (whatever happened) could insult the intelligence of fans?

                        I remember when the reunion happened. And I'm quite sure I remember Geezer saying something to the effect that they realized they had made mistakes in communication before. Including putting too much stock in what other people were saying about each other instead of working it out directly.

                        So what exactly would be the point of Geezer saying this unless it were true? Or at least the way they got past what had happened. I don't know ... but the notion that the band concocted this idea that others were influencing things seems a bit like just trying to fill in something that doesn't need to be filled in. Whatever happened, the band got past it, put out a killer album and played to legions of fans all over the world. I guess I don't get why I as a fan should feel insulted even if they sugarcoated things a bit and chose not get into every detail of their own issues between each other.
                        The so-called "communication" angle emerged around the time H & H reformed. First (in 1982), Tony and Geezer were sure Ronnie was messing with the (Live Evil) mix. Then, Ronnie and (sometimes) Vinny would say the others were the ones doing it. That story stood throughout the 80s in both camps. Enter 1992, and the story changes to drunk engineer Lee De Carlo (who was RARELY referred to by name, funny enough) who "told" Iommi that Ronnie was going in the studio and messing with the mix. ...

                        My question: how the fuck do four people in the same band "sneak" in to a studio without the others knowing? Kerang magazine once called the Live Evil story "one of the most pathetic tales in rock and roll" (VERY slight paraphrasing). Couldn't agree more.

                        So Jeff, you can say the guys "sugarcoated" these stories if you wish. However, it doesn't negate the fact that it's embarrassing to think that they actually believed the public would buy that nonsense. PR gone awry...AGAIN. Thanks for responding.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jeff View Post
                          I will say that if, at some point, one of them blamed the Live Evil fiasco on a "drunk engineer" then that just seems stupid. Who was it that said this? Any link to a quote?
                          The drunken engineer story sounded familar to me, so I just tried to find the interview where it was mentioned. I first thought it was The Black Sabbath Story Vol 2, but nope, it wasn't there, so I went on and checked out the interviews included as extras in the Neon Nights Wacken 2009 DVD. There are interviews with Ronnie, Geezer, Vinnie and Tony, and voila, it's in the Tony interview, from min 8:13 to about 9:15 of that interview. Actually it is only Tony here who mentions it, the other 3 seem a little more careful in what they are saying, and of course all 4's accounts are a little different. What sounds like the most realistic part of their stories to me is the breakdown of communication between band members, whatever the details of the story may be - we have witnessed that a lot with a lot of different line-ups of Sabbath (the Bill Ward/reunion situation with 13 is just the most recent occasion where that happened). While members of Sabbath love to emphasize how good friends they are (not only within the original line-up, but, depending on the situation where they are talking, with many other temporary band members as well), it seems to be a specialty of them to leave the communicative work to managers or other people (or just nobody!), especially in tensed situations, and then everybody's hugely surprised when something goes wrong and the respective line-up breaks up, and it takes them years to talk again.

                          As for insulting fans' intelligence, I think I get what A Sabbath Historian's means: Sabbath do keep changing their stories a lot over time, to an amount that may be typical for show business, but is definitely higher than I observe for most regular people around me, and sometimes sounds outright ridiculous indeed. However, I am sure most fans do not even notice, because they are not 'historians' like some of us here on the forum: some of them don't really care about interviews of the band, some are interested in specific eras only, many just don't really follow and evaluate what band members are saying over large periods of time. All in all, I think much of 'the public' simply does not care about the consistency or inconsistencies of people's stories. They want those stories to be entertaining, that's all. Not that many people really care about what's the truth anyway. Personally, however, I do indeed, like A Sabbath Historian, sometimes feel like Sabbath insult my intelligence by changing their stories that much over time. The causes of that behaviour are probably a mix of PR (as zzzptm pointed out) and a lack of social skills among the band members.

                          I have no idea when the engineer story first came up.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sabbabbath View Post
                            I have no idea when the engineer story first came up.
                            This is where I first heard it (Go to 4:18):



                            BTW, cool to see you finally on here Linda, Cheers!
                            We donít see things as they are; we see them as we are.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Axe fiend View Post
                              This is where I first heard it (Go to 4:18):



                              BTW, cool to see you finally on here Linda, Cheers!
                              Thank you! Yep, there it is, starting at 4:20 of that video. This documentary is from 1998, and here they pretty much all seem to agree on the drunken engineer story. Pathetic. Thanks for the nice words, Axe, great to meet you here too!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X