Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ozzy-Era Female Audience

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

  • William_the_Bloody
    replied
    Originally posted by Sabbabbath View Post
    ? What gave you the idea that I, who keeps arguing against the 100% idea, would think that I am 100% anything? I believe I never implied that - rather the opposite I would think. It was you who talked and asked about the Sabbath-and-women thing in a way that clearly and logically implied you expected it to be a 100% thing. If you don't, then the rhetorical question you asked ('show me ONE woman...') was clearly not helpful in expressing your thoughts.

    Now it seems like the only thing we do agree on here is indeed that nothing is 100%, at least in social life. Don't worry, I never asked you to "stop and marvel" at me, I wouldn't anybody to do that. This is not about me: I am not worried about you acknowledging anything specifically about me at all. And unlike you, I don't consider those traits of mine as unique or ultra-rare in the first place. What I am worried about is your and some other people's attempt to rehabilitate clichés or stereotypes; and I am not worried so much for myself here, but generally for people who do get marginalized or discriminated against in society. Of course that does not mainly or most importantly happen through words, but through actions. However, words do tend to express the way we think, and the way we think does tend to cause us to DO things as well; plus words totally have, through dialogue, talk, enlightenment or propaganda, the potential to affect other people's thoughts and actions as well. So we have very good reasons to take the words we say seriously.

    I have already insinuated that talking about 'general patterns' or 'tendencies' would perfectly do any favourable job that clichés possibly do, and at the same way would help avoid the dangers of clichés. If you practice just a little bit, it is actually pretty easy to talk about group differences and similarities etc. in ways that do NOT negate individual differences. That's a very common task in social and political science, by the way. Your assumption that the "margin of error" is "microscopic" already indicates that you are prejudiced though. For the large majority of possible subjects it is much more reasonable to take the chance of errors more serious since it is a very basic fact of social life that people make mistakes all the time, not just rarely. If you are an exception, you are the one that needs examination in a laboratory. ;-) If you aren't, maybe try and become a little more modest. :-)

    For your information: the negative connotation of clichés or stereotypes is definitely NOT, as you suggested, due to any "social justice warriors'" activities. Instead, those words have ALWAYS had negative connotations since the day they first were transferred from printer's jargon to everyday language. Check out any etymological dictionary if you don't believe me (example: <https://www.etymonline.com>, source of my following quotes). In fact, the terms "cliché" and "stereotype" mean what they mean now since the 19th century and early 20th century respectively; before that, the words were only used as technical terms in printer's jargon. The meaning of "stereotype" as a "preconceived and oversimplified notion of characteristics typical of a person or group" is recorded from 1922; note that it is explicitly "oversimplified", unlike just "simplified". Similarly, "cliché" already referred "trite phrase, worn-out expression" in 1888. Your supposed "rehabilitation" of clichés or stereotypes wouldn't be a rehabilitation at all, but a full-blown re-definition of the meaning of those terms. No "social justice warrior", but folk wisdom coined them. I think you should reconsider if oversimplifications and worn-out expressions are really what you or anybody needs. :-)
    I feel as if we've gone off-the-rails (on a crazy train?) here. We seem to no longer be talking about proper, female Black Sabbath fans, should there, in fact, be more than one.

    Leave a comment:


  • BACK TO EDEN
    replied
    Originally posted by Sabbabbath View Post
    ? What gave you the idea that I, who keeps arguing against the 100% idea, would think that I am 100% anything? I believe I never implied that - rather the opposite I would think. It was you who talked and asked about the Sabbath-and-women thing in a way that clearly and logically implied you expected it to be a 100% thing. If you don't, then the rhetorical question you asked ('show me ONE woman...') was clearly not helpful in expressing your thoughts.

    Now it seems like the only thing we do agree on here is indeed that nothing is 100%, at least in social life. Don't worry, I never asked you to "stop and marvel" at me, I wouldn't anybody to do that. This is not about me: I am not worried about you acknowledging anything specifically about me at all. And unlike you, I don't consider those traits of mine as unique or ultra-rare in the first place. What I am worried about is your and some other people's attempt to rehabilitate clichés or stereotypes; and I am not worried so much for myself here, but generally for people who do get marginalized or discriminated against in society. Of course that does not mainly or most importantly happen through words, but through actions. However, words do tend to express the way we think, and the way we think does tend to cause us to DO things as well; plus words totally have, through dialogue, talk, enlightenment or propaganda, the potential to affect other people's thoughts and actions as well. So we have very good reasons to take the words we say seriously.

    I have already insinuated that talking about 'general patterns' or 'tendencies' would perfectly do any favourable job that clichés possibly do, and at the same way would help avoid the dangers of clichés. If you practice just a little bit, it is actually pretty easy to talk about group differences and similarities etc. in ways that do NOT negate individual differences. That's a very common task in social and political science, by the way. Your assumption that the "margin of error" is "microscopic" already indicates that you are prejudiced though. For the large majority of possible subjects it is much more reasonable to take the chance of errors more serious since it is a very basic fact of social life that people make mistakes all the time, not just rarely. If you are an exception, you are the one that needs examination in a laboratory. ;-) If you aren't, maybe try and become a little more modest. :-)

    For your information: the negative connotation of clichés or stereotypes is definitely NOT, as you suggested, due to any "social justice warriors'" activities. Instead, those words have ALWAYS had negative connotations since the day they first were transferred from printer's jargon to everyday language. Check out any etymological dictionary if you don't believe me (example: <https://www.etymonline.com>, source of my following quotes). In fact, the terms "cliché" and "stereotype" mean what they mean now since the 19th century and early 20th century respectively; before that, the words were only used as technical terms in printer's jargon. The meaning of "stereotype" as a "preconceived and oversimplified notion of characteristics typical of a person or group" is recorded from 1922; note that it is explicitly "oversimplified", unlike just "simplified". Similarly, "cliché" already referred "trite phrase, worn-out expression" in 1888. Your supposed "rehabilitation" of clichés or stereotypes wouldn't be a rehabilitation at all, but a full-blown re-definition of the meaning of those terms. No "social justice warrior", but folk wisdom coined them. I think you should reconsider if oversimplifications and worn-out expressions are really what you or anybody needs. :-)
    Linda , I've come to enjoy how fired up you get on certain subjects .... but I have also recognized that you jump to conclusions and "stereotypes" very quickly yourself , maybe without even knowing it ,,,, see in America - lots of people say words based on upbringing and ideas in ones own head , "cliches" included , just to make a point , yet it has absolutely nothing to do with ones actions , nothing.

    If you want to assume something about William based on his words alone , you will never get anywhere .... a true assumption about William is that he is a God fearing man that does not lack common sense , and enjoys a little back and forth on a Black Sabbath forum ,, everything else is an old wives tale

    Leave a comment:


  • Sabbabbath
    replied
    Originally posted by William_the_Bloody View Post
    *Nothing* is ever 100%, and I think that goes without having to say every time a person voices an opinion or observation. If you are the/an exception it is probably *you* who is worried you will be overlooked or marginalized. You are not overlooked or marginalized by my statements. I acknowledge your unique or ultra-rare set of traits to the best of my ability to do so in the capacity of an internet forum. If I do not stop and marvel, forgive me, it's not personal it's that I prefer to focus on the unbelievably massive tendency towards the other direction which does indicate a more measurable phenomenon. Or, in other words, we don't get very far in a discussion when we are compelled to break down the microscopic margin of error.

    It's merely a matter of momentum.
    ? What gave you the idea that I, who keeps arguing against the 100% idea, would think that I am 100% anything? I believe I never implied that - rather the opposite I would think. It was you who talked and asked about the Sabbath-and-women thing in a way that clearly and logically implied you expected it to be a 100% thing. If you don't, then the rhetorical question you asked ('show me ONE woman...') was clearly not helpful in expressing your thoughts.

    Now it seems like the only thing we do agree on here is indeed that nothing is 100%, at least in social life. Don't worry, I never asked you to "stop and marvel" at me, I wouldn't anybody to do that. This is not about me: I am not worried about you acknowledging anything specifically about me at all. And unlike you, I don't consider those traits of mine as unique or ultra-rare in the first place. What I am worried about is your and some other people's attempt to rehabilitate clichés or stereotypes; and I am not worried so much for myself here, but generally for people who do get marginalized or discriminated against in society. Of course that does not mainly or most importantly happen through words, but through actions. However, words do tend to express the way we think, and the way we think does tend to cause us to DO things as well; plus words totally have, through dialogue, talk, enlightenment or propaganda, the potential to affect other people's thoughts and actions as well. So we have very good reasons to take the words we say seriously.

    I have already insinuated that talking about 'general patterns' or 'tendencies' would perfectly do any favourable job that clichés possibly do, and at the same way would help avoid the dangers of clichés. If you practice just a little bit, it is actually pretty easy to talk about group differences and similarities etc. in ways that do NOT negate individual differences. That's a very common task in social and political science, by the way. Your assumption that the "margin of error" is "microscopic" already indicates that you are prejudiced though. For the large majority of possible subjects it is much more reasonable to take the chance of errors more serious since it is a very basic fact of social life that people make mistakes all the time, not just rarely. If you are an exception, you are the one that needs examination in a laboratory. ;-) If you aren't, maybe try and become a little more modest. :-)

    For your information: the negative connotation of clichés or stereotypes is definitely NOT, as you suggested, due to any "social justice warriors'" activities. Instead, those words have ALWAYS had negative connotations since the day they first were transferred from printer's jargon to everyday language. Check out any etymological dictionary if you don't believe me (example: <https://www.etymonline.com>, source of my following quotes). In fact, the terms "cliché" and "stereotype" mean what they mean now since the 19th century and early 20th century respectively; before that, the words were only used as technical terms in printer's jargon. The meaning of "stereotype" as a "preconceived and oversimplified notion of characteristics typical of a person or group" is recorded from 1922; note that it is explicitly "oversimplified", unlike just "simplified". Similarly, "cliché" already referred "trite phrase, worn-out expression" in 1888. Your supposed "rehabilitation" of clichés or stereotypes wouldn't be a rehabilitation at all, but a full-blown re-definition of the meaning of those terms. No "social justice warrior", but folk wisdom coined them. I think you should reconsider if oversimplifications and worn-out expressions are really what you or anybody needs. :-)
    Last edited by Sabbabbath; 01-30-2018, 03:12 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • William_the_Bloody
    replied
    Originally posted by Sabbabbath View Post
    It's not like I disagree with all of what you're saying here (though I would dispute most of those parts of your statement that seem to deal with your view on the societal situation in your country rather than the opinions voiced in this thread). I do agree there are intelligent and potentially productive ways of dealing with clichés. But when you wrote: "Show me a woman who listens to 'Megalomania' because she relates to the isolation and escapism and the snarliness of the riff...I mean really...find ONE", you clearly proved that you were believing it was a 100% thing, not just a pattern or tendency. Thus, you have yourself demonstrated that your way of using or following clichés can be very misleading. At such a point, you are at high risk of overlooking those facets of the person in front of you that don't fit your cliché, and also at high risk of 'seeing' things in her that are not there simply because those things fit your cliché. When that happens, then a potentially helpful notion of an overall pattern or tendency has turned into an indeed dangerous cliché that reduces an individual to its membership in a certain group and thus deprives it of any truly individual characteristics. I don't know who those "Brainwashed Social Justice Warriors" are that you are talking about (and I guess it wouldn't be a proper topic for this forum since politics is forbidden here), but as you hopefully noticed, and as I have repeatedly pointed out, no-one here has disputed the overall tendency that the vast majority of Sabbath fans are or were male. What Jeff (if I read him correctly) and I are opposing is the habit of exaggerating that tendency in such a way as to make it appear like a 100% thing.
    *Nothing* is ever 100%, and I think that goes without having to say every time a person voices an opinion or observation. If you are the/an exception it is probably *you* who is worried you will be overlooked or marginalized. You are not overlooked or marginalized by my statements. I acknowledge your unique or ultra-rare set of traits to the best of my ability to do so in the capacity of an internet forum. If I do not stop and marvel, forgive me, it's not personal it's that I prefer to focus on the unbelievably massive tendency towards the other direction which does indicate a more measurable phenomenon. Or, in other words, we don't get very far in a discussion when we are compelled to break down the microscopic margin of error.

    It's merely a matter of momentum.

    Leave a comment:


  • A Sabbath Historian
    replied
    Originally posted by Sabbabbath View Post
    Or maybe it's your stereotypes that need to be studied. :-) Seriously, apart from a few very basic bodily/biological facts, differences between women and men are never a 100% thing. Rather, they work as tendencies and probabilities. There are psychological studies that show that differences in personal traits between individuals are always bigger than those between sexes as groups. Differences between the sexes are differences between the average woman and man, NOT between every single woman and every single man.

    More specifically for Sabbath, again, nobody has denied that the vast majority of fans in the 1970ies were men. What I do deny is the clichés that all women who like some male band's music do it simply because those men are 'alpha men' and/or because they want sex with those men and/or because the band plays some sweet mainstream music and/or between they (the female fans) are the girlfriend of somebody etc. To call it a cliché does NOT mean those things don't happen (of course they do), but that they are not the whole story. And don't forget that there are many rock fans out there who, for some reason or other, never or rarely attend concerts. Yes you didn't meet many women on those gigs back then, but does that prove women didn't like that music. I don't think so. Just to give an example, I know several women who really don't like to go to any big event at all where the majority of people can be expected to be drunk men. And that does not have to do anything with the musical taste of those women. Even today, it is not always funny for a woman to be on such an event, and I would guess it was probably a little worse in the 1970ies. I don't want to raise this as a big issue - it's just meant as an example showing that being attracted by a certain style of music or a specific band does not necessarily lead everybody to regularly attending concert shows. Myself I have only been to one Sabbath show in my life. I attended two Tiamat shows. Does that tell you much about my band preferences? I don't think so!!! I am a HUGE Sabbath fan and collector, and I am also a big fan of Leonard Cohen who I NEVER saw live. Actually Tiamat were special guest for Sabbath and played on the same small festival as Savatage, otherwise I would never have attended a Tiamat show (though I did like Wildhoney a little). Maybe while some of you were attending Sabbath's concert shows, some women were sitting at home listening to their Master of Reality LP. :-)

    You mentioned that being a loner predisposes one to be a Sabbath fan. Well, even though you may picture a man when you hear the word 'loner', there are female loners too!

    Also, while it is true that the Don Kirshner video may have been intentionally arranged in such a way as to make women in it appear more prominent. Anyway, that's much less likely with audience recordings and shots, and Jeff is right to point out there are some with women screaming all over the mic. And on the Cal Jam video, no matter for which band or with which boyfriend many of those women came to the festival, some of them are obviously enjoying Sabbath's show.



    Man, so many clichés in such a small passage even though you seem to be a smart person, I don't get it. Are women never left-behind, downtrodden, depressed?
    Excellent comments Sabbabbath! And well stated. Respect. ...

    Leave a comment:


  • Sabbabbath
    replied
    Originally posted by William_the_Bloody View Post
    It's precisely because I am a smart person that I feel comfortable in dealing with clichés. Clichés exist for a reason; they don't really spring forth from a vacuum.

    If I have a tool that works 99% of the time, that is and always will be a useful tool. We mustn't throw away such a useful tool simply because every once in a while it fails.

    As a society we have painted ourselves into a bit of a corner by assigning a negative connotation to stereotyping, or making blanket statements, or discussing "clichés". The truth is, to get anywhere near the "bottom" of things, we must speak in broad terms, profile and...perhaps most importantly...never fail to assign value to our own personal experiences for fear that they underscore the stereotype.

    Where truth can be found and truth can be illustrated with pattern recognition, we must do so.

    That you find what I wrote "Cliché" means you are almost certainly personally familiar with what I wrote. Not yourself, of course, but you've seen the pattern in others and you know it's out there and if pressed anyone reading this would concur that they've seen it too.

    In conclusion, smart people use useful tools to paint a clearer picture and further discussion.

    Brainwashed Social Justice Warriors reject such tools because, when used, they shine light on problems and issues they'd rather not confront because it undermines their "Everyone is a snowflake" narrative.

    In my humble opinion. YMMV.

    It's not like I disagree with all of what you're saying here (though I would dispute most of those parts of your statement that seem to deal with your view on the societal situation in your country rather than the opinions voiced in this thread). I do agree there are intelligent and potentially productive ways of dealing with clichés. But when you wrote: "Show me a woman who listens to 'Megalomania' because she relates to the isolation and escapism and the snarliness of the riff...I mean really...find ONE", you clearly proved that you were believing it was a 100% thing, not just a pattern or tendency. Thus, you have yourself demonstrated that your way of using or following clichés can be very misleading. At such a point, you are at high risk of overlooking those facets of the person in front of you that don't fit your cliché, and also at high risk of 'seeing' things in her that are not there simply because those things fit your cliché. When that happens, then a potentially helpful notion of an overall pattern or tendency has turned into an indeed dangerous cliché that reduces an individual to its membership in a certain group and thus deprives it of any truly individual characteristics. I don't know who those "Brainwashed Social Justice Warriors" are that you are talking about (and I guess it wouldn't be a proper topic for this forum since politics is forbidden here), but as you hopefully noticed, and as I have repeatedly pointed out, no-one here has disputed the overall tendency that the vast majority of Sabbath fans are or were male. What Jeff (if I read him correctly) and I are opposing is the habit of exaggerating that tendency in such a way as to make it appear like a 100% thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • William_the_Bloody
    replied
    Originally posted by Sabbabbath View Post

    Man, so many clichés in such a small passage even though you seem to be a smart person, I don't get it.
    It's precisely because I am a smart person that I feel comfortable in dealing with clichés. Clichés exist for a reason; they don't really spring forth from a vacuum.

    If I have a tool that works 99% of the time, that is and always will be a useful tool. We mustn't throw away such a useful tool simply because every once in a while it fails.

    As a society we have painted ourselves into a bit of a corner by assigning a negative connotation to stereotyping, or making blanket statements, or discussing "clichés". The truth is, to get anywhere near the "bottom" of things, we must speak in broad terms, profile and...perhaps most importantly...never fail to assign value to our own personal experiences for fear that they underscore the stereotype.

    Where truth can be found and truth can be illustrated with pattern recognition, we must do so.

    That you find what I wrote "Cliché" means you are almost certainly personally familiar with what I wrote. Not yourself, of course, but you've seen the pattern in others and you know it's out there and if pressed anyone reading this would concur that they've seen it too.

    In conclusion, smart people use useful tools to paint a clearer picture and further discussion.

    Brainwashed Social Justice Warriors reject such tools because, when used, they shine light on problems and issues they'd rather not confront because it undermines their "Everyone is a snowflake" narrative.

    In my humble opinion. YMMV.


    Of course women can be loners, downtrodden, etc and of course women can also be very *into* music in a proper manner. However, I've never really gotten to personally verify that in the real world.

    BTW: I also hate events where the main draw is a bunch of drunk guys. I've only ever seen Black Sabbath on Cross Purposes and Dehumanizer tours. I've never seen Ozzy in any capacity, and when I saw Dio it was a small venue on "Master of the Moon" tour.

    I hate concerts, really. I like a bootleg now and then, just to see how awful stuff is compared to the studio version.
    Last edited by William_the_Bloody; 01-29-2018, 09:51 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sabbabbath
    replied
    Originally posted by William_the_Bloody View Post
    Well, that's really cool...but sometimes the exception proves the rule. I feel a little bit like you should be studied in a controlled laboratory environment by a team of experts, possibly from a secret Military base. Certainly, there are questions.
    Or maybe it's your stereotypes that need to be studied. :-) Seriously, apart from a few very basic bodily/biological facts, differences between women and men are never a 100% thing. Rather, they work as tendencies and probabilities. There are psychological studies that show that differences in personal traits between individuals are always bigger than those between sexes as groups. Differences between the sexes are differences between the average woman and man, NOT between every single woman and every single man.

    More specifically for Sabbath, again, nobody has denied that the vast majority of fans in the 1970ies were men. What I do deny is the clichés that all women who like some male band's music do it simply because those men are 'alpha men' and/or because they want sex with those men and/or because the band plays some sweet mainstream music and/or between they (the female fans) are the girlfriend of somebody etc. To call it a cliché does NOT mean those things don't happen (of course they do), but that they are not the whole story. And don't forget that there are many rock fans out there who, for some reason or other, never or rarely attend concerts. Yes you didn't meet many women on those gigs back then, but does that prove women didn't like that music. I don't think so. Just to give an example, I know several women who really don't like to go to any big event at all where the majority of people can be expected to be drunk men. And that does not have to do anything with the musical taste of those women. Even today, it is not always funny for a woman to be on such an event, and I would guess it was probably a little worse in the 1970ies. I don't want to raise this as a big issue - it's just meant as an example showing that being attracted by a certain style of music or a specific band does not necessarily lead everybody to regularly attending concert shows. Myself I have only been to one Sabbath show in my life. I attended two Tiamat shows. Does that tell you much about my band preferences? I don't think so!!! I am a HUGE Sabbath fan and collector, and I am also a big fan of Leonard Cohen who I NEVER saw live. Actually Tiamat were special guest for Sabbath and played on the same small festival as Savatage, otherwise I would never have attended a Tiamat show (though I did like Wildhoney a little). Maybe while some of you were attending Sabbath's concert shows, some women were sitting at home listening to their Master of Reality LP. :-)

    You mentioned that being a loner predisposes one to be a Sabbath fan. Well, even though you may picture a man when you hear the word 'loner', there are female loners too!

    Also, while it is true that the Don Kirshner video may have been intentionally arranged in such a way as to make women in it appear more prominent. Anyway, that's much less likely with audience recordings and shots, and Jeff is right to point out there are some with women screaming all over the mic. And on the Cal Jam video, no matter for which band or with which boyfriend many of those women came to the festival, some of them are obviously enjoying Sabbath's show.

    Originally posted by William_the_Bloody View Post
    Black Sabbath's point-of-view just isn't "Alpha" and that's what the ladies are latching on to. Sabbath is a band for the left-behind, downtrodden, depressed. I'll probably catch hell for that one, but it's true.

    The rare female that likes Black Sabbath either likes all the "wrong" songs (Changes, Sweet Leaf because they really like Marijuana, Paranoid because they heard it on the radio) or they like the most "Devil" songs because they are latching on to the Witchy/Tatted up Hardcore trope.
    Man, so many clichés in such a small passage even though you seem to be a smart person, I don't get it. Are women never left-behind, downtrodden, depressed?
    Last edited by Sabbabbath; 01-29-2018, 09:37 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • William_the_Bloody
    replied
    Originally posted by Sabbabbath View Post
    Well - me!!!
    Well, that's really cool...but sometimes the exception proves the rule. I feel a little bit like you should be studied in a controlled laboratory environment by a team of experts, possibly from a secret Military base. Certainly, there are questions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicked Cricket
    replied
    Originally posted by William_the_Bloody View Post
    I would argue that the vast majority of individual experiences, recordings be damned (and how many shows that were actually filmed weren't staged with hired girls up front or just moving more women to the front for free), most will turn out to be a "Guys only" band.

    Ozzy Solo, on the other hand, really opened things up.

    Black Sabbath's point-of-view just isn't "Alpha" and that's what the ladies are latching on to. Sabbath is a band for the left-behind, downtrodden, depressed. I'll probably catch hell for that one, but it's true.

    The rare female that likes Black Sabbath either likes all the "wrong" songs (Changes, Sweet Leaf because they really like Marijuana, Paranoid because they heard it on the radio) or they like the most "Devil" songs because they are latching on to the Witchy/Tatted up Hardcore trope.

    I will catch more hell for that, I'll bet.

    Show me a woman who listens to "Megalomania" because she relates to the isolation and escapism and the snarliness of the riff...I mean really...find ONE.
    yea, and the thing is in the 70's, there wasn't a "Heavy Metal" genre crowd, where both sexes mingled, heck even hard rock was predominately male, and the gothic chick thing wasn't even a category. One has to be careful to view concerts back in the 70's, as many multi-band festivals, Cal Jam I for instance, were an eclectic mix of music from funk to country rock to hard rock/metal, drawing crowds from all genres. Like I previously said, my opinion is from personal boots on the ground experience not from watching an old video from California or wherever. For 2nd and 3rd generation fans there's a greater mix of male/female.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sabbabbath
    replied
    Originally posted by William_the_Bloody View Post
    Show me a woman who listens to "Megalomania" because she relates to the isolation and escapism and the snarliness of the riff...I mean really...find ONE.
    Well - me!!!
    Last edited by Sabbabbath; 01-28-2018, 01:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • William_the_Bloody
    replied
    I would argue that the vast majority of individual experiences, recordings be damned (and how many shows that were actually filmed weren't staged with hired girls up front or just moving more women to the front for free), most will turn out to be a "Guys only" band.

    Ozzy Solo, on the other hand, really opened things up.

    Black Sabbath's point-of-view just isn't "Alpha" and that's what the ladies are latching on to. Sabbath is a band for the left-behind, downtrodden, depressed. I'll probably catch hell for that one, but it's true.

    The rare female that likes Black Sabbath either likes all the "wrong" songs (Changes, Sweet Leaf because they really like Marijuana, Paranoid because they heard it on the radio) or they like the most "Devil" songs because they are latching on to the Witchy/Tatted up Hardcore trope.

    I will catch more hell for that, I'll bet.

    Show me a woman who listens to "Megalomania" because she relates to the isolation and escapism and the snarliness of the riff...I mean really...find ONE.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicked Cricket
    replied
    Originally posted by Jeff View Post
    The problem with this is that you're speaking in absolute terms, when the chances are good that you can only speak for one specific area. The area where you grew up and happened to be.

    Recordings speak volumes. And when a band has shows with screaming women in their archive, the "guy's band" tag can only ever be an exaggeration, IMO.
    ha! well I'm only speaking from a specific area and experience yes....

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeff
    replied
    Originally posted by Wicked Cricket View Post
    If were talking fans in the 70's... males outnumbered chicks I'd say 10-1 at a Sabbath show and very few if any girls I knew listened to them in H.S. They were definitely a guy's band. Any females who did go see them live were 99% with their BF's... they're weren't any "older" fans or kids at those shows either we're talking 70's not 21st century. Henry Rollins had it 100% correct in who were the Sab fans.... her nailed it!
    The problem with this is that you're speaking in absolute terms, when the chances are good that you can only speak for one specific area. The area where you grew up and happened to be.

    Recordings speak volumes. And when a band has shows with screaming women in their archive, the "guy's band" tag can only ever be an exaggeration, IMO.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicked Cricket
    replied
    If were talking fans in the 70's... males outnumbered chicks I'd say 10-1 at a Sabbath show and very few if any girls I knew listened to them in H.S. They were definitely a guy's band. Any females who did go see them live were 99% with their BF's... they're weren't any "older" fans or kids at those shows either we're talking 70's not 21st century. Henry Rollins had it 100% correct in who were the Sab fans.... her nailed it!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X