View Poll Results: Heaven & Hell Vs. Blizzard of Ozz

Voters
62. You may not vote on this poll
  • Heaven & Hell

    48 77.42%
  • Blizzard of Ozz

    14 22.58%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 41 to 66 of 66
  1. #41
    WarningRules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    2,072

    Default

    Quote 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.
    "i'm 12 and i love dark sabboth"

  2. #42
    nunoni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Lisbon, Portugal
    Posts
    2,949

    Default

    Quote 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.

  3. #43
    RLP4ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    4,885

    Default

    Quote 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.
    "Actors really are the scum of the earth. Their behavior makes arrogant, overpaid rock stars appear positively noble' - Buzz Osborne

  4. #44
    nunoni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Lisbon, Portugal
    Posts
    2,949

    Default

    Quote 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.

  5. #45

    Default

    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 at 01:22 PM.

  6. #46
    WarningRules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    2,072

    Default

    Quote 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 ----------

    Quote 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.


    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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
    "i'm 12 and i love dark sabboth"

  7. #47
    RLP4ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    4,885

    Default

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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


    Quote 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 at 09:51 PM.
    "Actors really are the scum of the earth. Their behavior makes arrogant, overpaid rock stars appear positively noble' - Buzz Osborne

  8. #48

    Default

    Quote 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.

  9. #49
    RLP4ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    4,885

    Default

    Quote 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.
    "Actors really are the scum of the earth. Their behavior makes arrogant, overpaid rock stars appear positively noble' - Buzz Osborne

  10. #50
    WarningRules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    2,072

    Default

    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".
    "i'm 12 and i love dark sabboth"

  11. #51
    Ozzien82's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Gainesville, Florida
    Posts
    1,040

    Default

    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.
    Is it just me, or does somebody else believe it?
    I'm not alone, and I'm not afraid.
    There's just one thing to say, after all.

  12. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RLP4ever View Post
    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?
    Love Dave Mustaine. I've always found him super intelligent and articulate, but he rubs a lot of people the wrong way. He's perceived to be arrogant and he doesn't do a lot to downplay it. I'm sort of the same way, so I understand it.

    Quote Originally Posted by RLP4ever View Post
    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.
    I'm not saying Ozzy didn't bring anything to table. I've always thought of him as a unique vocalist. His sound is important to those early records and it will be silly to deny it. At the same time however, I still have to view it for what it is. Iommi wrote a lot of the music, Geezer wrote most of the lyrics, Bill Ward provided solid drumming, and Ozzy had his sound. To me RLP, it seems as you're almost trying to turn lead into gold, or somehow convince me that Ozzy's sound is just THAT much more important to the music, with Sabbath or solo, than the sum of the parts suggest. For someone that doesn't care much for the post-1978 output of Sabbath, your argument is a fair one, but if Ozzy's singing isn't the most important thing to people, then it's logical that they are going to be more willing to accept (and possibly even prefer) other eras of Sabbath, or Dio-Sabbath over Ozzy's early solo stuff. I never found Ozzy's "wail" the selling point for me personally; I'm a guitar player. The guitar is why I love Sabbath and that's also why I love Blizzard and Diary. I don't hate Ozzy's vocals or particularly enjoy them either way. They work well for the music and that's all I care about.

    I'm also not saying Ozzy needed to reinvent himself. I was just trying to rationalize why you view his output as vital to both Sabbath and his early solo records, but especially the latter. Ozzy has a unique sound, yes, but so do a lot of other people.

    Quote Originally Posted by RLP4ever View Post
    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.
    Mostly agreed. Although I just can't give Ozzy that much credit for his first two solo records. He sang, and he sang well, and it helped to a degree, although we obviously don't agree on 'to what degree' it helped to sell those records, and probably never will.

    I must say though, this was a good discussion. I don't get this much where I normally do a lot of my talking about this subject.

  13. #53
    RLP4ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    4,885

    Default

    Boo, nice to get talk-back from you. I appreciate the exchanges we've had.

    Ha, you're pretty spot-on about Dave Mustaine. He's got such a substantive character (yes, even a healthy arrogance about him which I don't mind at all) and an above-average intellect with a good grasp of various issues and an ability to be expressive about his opinions on them. Besides, he's always been a fabulous, inspired (and inspiring) musician. It's just that when I considered your earlier comments about being 'fair' and as objective as possible in assessing musicians that you may not wholly like, as individuals, for various reasons, Dave instantly sprang to mind----his (allegedly) infamously shabby, high-handed treatment of some of his bandmates, his well-publicised paranoic streak, the born-again Christian turnaround in his life that has both confounded and alienated many of his fans, to varying extents.

    As for your other points, I realise our opinions overlap much and are essentially slightly more similar than they are dissimilar.

    Haha, Boo, lemme confess that when it comes to Ozzy's contributions and importance to the bands he's been in, Sabbath or his own, it isn't so much as my wanting to turn 'lead into gold' as feeling the urge to counter the prevailing penchant in these forums lately for glibly characterising what I definitely already view as 'gold' into cheap 'tin' or less. LOL

    Ozzy was the 'singer' --in Sabbath and the OZZY band-----and I don't think any singer in a metal band ever easily gets 'more' credit than he deserves. The singer 'sings' and his vocal style and the sound of his voice, how it enhances or mars the music, and the impact his vocals have on us, is hardly a trivial consideration, or necessarily a 'lesser' attribute in the band's 'sum of parts' whole, so to speak. And Ozzy is far from alone, in metal music, in being a singer that ONLY sings. So, it's both utterly baffling and rather maddening to constantly hear people carp about Ozzy's supposedly 'insignificant' , unremarkable input to Sabbath, or his solo band. I know that you are not exactly doing this. And I can also understand somebody not being a particularly fervent fan of Ozzy's singing, but it's folly to fail to see or admit how Ozzy's voice was important and helped enhance the music, a.k.a 'the real hard work' that Iommi, Butler and Ward were doing around him, and later, the magnificent music that Rhoads/Kerslake/Daisley made. Metal has always been a patently guitar-driven genre, and I, too, mainly love and follow the metal that I love, primarily for the unlimited guitar coolness on offer. And the devastating drums. The beauty of the bass or rhythm guitar. That said, the vocals can be--and often is---a crucial factor for me, in a lot of metal music that I listen to and love. You're right, Ozzy was 'unique' as was many others, in their own right. I just think that Ozzy's 'voice' and style lent a whole lot more to the powerful and enduring appeal of early-Sabbath and the Ozzy Osbourne band, than is normally either adequately recognised or acknowledged.

    Lastly, I don't know, nor overly care about, how much Ozzy's presence and performances on either Sabbath or the Ozzy band, actually helped "sell" those classic records (Blizzard and Diary, included) All I know is that Ozzy played no mean part in helping make all those records the uniquely impressive and unforgettable hours of priceless metal music, that they undoubtedly are---regardless of how many 'albums', cd/vinyl/etc, they eventually sold, all over the world. cheers, Boo!


    Quote Originally Posted by Warning Rules
    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".
    Warning, I've probably partially explained this already in my reply to Boo, above. Anyway, when I run into this whole "Ozzy contributed little to none other then his vocals", I can only respond to them by saying 'Yeah, right. So what's your beef with that? Lol
    I' argue that it shouldn't (and it doesn't) matter jack shit whether Ozzy ever wrote a single line of lyrics (though, in fact, he did) to the songs he sang, or sat down to help his band-mates in the overall song-writing sessions or whatever else some people seem to demand of him. Ozzy was the singer. He had a specialist's job to do. And he did it awesomely. He couldn't, indeed needn't, even if he could, have helped with the drums, bass or lead guitar to warrant any more respect or credibility from anybody, than he already merits as the singer. In Black Sabbath, for his singing alone, pure and simple, Ozzy has my admiration and gratitude, no less. If that isn't contribution enough for some, then heck, maybe we should have had Iommi do EVERYTHING in 'his' band, from the start. Or brought in some other guy after Black Sabbath and seen how things panned out without Ozzy, '70- onwards.
    "Actors really are the scum of the earth. Their behavior makes arrogant, overpaid rock stars appear positively noble' - Buzz Osborne

  14. #54

    Default

    that's a naughty thing comparing these two albums ;-)
    although heaven&hell is a masterpiece of iommi's riffing - the impact of "the blizzard of ozz" (how the band primarly wanted to be called - and would fited better - it's not a soloalbum of ozzy, it's the teamwork of all four including kerslake and daisley - how can ozzy disgrace randy's legacy by re-recording the parts of them) on my life was so powerful - i have to choose blizzard

  15. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BooSweeney View Post
    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.
    The more I think about this, the more I think that it's an excellent point. I prefer Dio Sabbath myself, but in the early 80's I absolutely loved Ozzy's solo work. When I first read this I thought it downplayed Ozzy's significance to his own early solo work a bit more than it deserved. But in truth, after Blizzard and Diary, Ozzy released one more solid album (as I said, I like BATM, but not quite as much as the first two) and from say 85 to 09 I doubt you could fill a vinyl album with Ozzy solo work I like. Perhaps the loss of Rhoads AND Daisley did to Ozzy what leaving Sabbath did to Dio (after The Last in Line I don't care much for his work). And so perhaps Ozzy does get too much credit for the greatness of Blizzard and Diary.

  16. #56
    8bit Fighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    6,381

    Default

    I picked Heaven And Hell because simply it's the album I have been listening lately. Blizzard of Ozz isn't bad either, but point the gun at me, I guess at an instant right now is H&H.

    ---------- Post added at 10:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 PM ----------

    Btw, when is round 2 coming? As much as I love Mob Rules, I like Diary Of A Madman slightly better. It really shown what Randy could do in a second helping in Ozzy's solo career (he was just getting started with the first two Quiet Riot albums in the 70's.)
    "Even with so much bad blood between us... It's funny... Now that I'm actually face to face with him again... The hatred is gone. All I feel is a deep sense of longing. And pity. Did Zero really hate me? Or... Did he fear me?" - Big Boss

  17. #57
    WarningRules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    2,072

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 8bit Fighter View Post

    Btw, when is round 2 coming? As much as I love Mob Rules, I like Diary Of A Madman slightly better. It really shown what Randy could do in a second helping in Ozzy's solo career (he was just getting started with the first two Quiet Riot albums in the 70's.)
    Lulz

    Round two:

    http://www.black-sabbath.com/vb/showthread.php?t=31452

    Round three:

    http://www.black-sabbath.com/vb/showthread.php?t=31460
    "i'm 12 and i love dark sabboth"

  18. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WarningRules View Post
    Yep, none of the fanboys... erm... I mean "Die hard Ozzy but not Sabbath" fans have shown up yet
    I'm a "Die hard Sabbath but not Ozzy, nor H&H" kind of guy. Think that Ozzys first solo beats Heaven And Hell but it's close.

  19. #59
    OzzyIsDio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Sabbath Forever, Forever Sabbath
    Posts
    10,134

    Default

    Blizzard Of Ozz.
    "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)

  20. #60

    Default

    Blizzard Of Ozz

    Sent fra min SM-G950F via Tapatalk

  21. #61

    Default

    Two critical albums, my choice is Blizzard.

  22. #62
    OzzyIsDio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Sabbath Forever, Forever Sabbath
    Posts
    10,134

    Default

    After being hooked on Bark At The Moon, it's the Ozzy album that was out when I was coming up as a youth and I was already hooked on Ozzy's voice, then when I garnered some money together and bought Blizzard, from the first listen I fell in love, the music and the voice, then came Diary and Speak Of The Devil, the rest is history and future, I've never gone back on Ozzy and Sabbath, and never will.
    Last edited by OzzyIsDio; 08-18-2018 at 08:32 AM. Reason: Typo
    "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)

  23. #63
    Requiem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Southern Darkness
    Posts
    278

    Default

    While I do respect and enjoy 'Heaven and Hell' a lot, I voted 'Blizzard of Ozz' quite easily.

    'Blizzard of Ozz' is one of my all time favourite albums and is packed full of hits. Ozzy sounds great, Randy is at his best and Bob Daisley's lyrics and songwriting (with Randy) is next level. I can't go past songs like 'Suicide Solution', 'Mr Crowley', 'I Don't Know' and 'Goodbye to Romance' to name just a few. When I compare them to the best on 'Heaven and Hell' there really is no competition for me.

  24. #64
    OzzyIsDio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Sabbath Forever, Forever Sabbath
    Posts
    10,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
    While I do respect and enjoy 'Heaven and Hell' a lot, I voted 'Blizzard of Ozz' quite easily.

    'Blizzard of Ozz' is one of my all time favourite albums and is packed full of hits. Ozzy sounds great, Randy is at his best and Bob Daisley's lyrics and songwriting (with Randy) is next level. I can't go past songs like 'Suicide Solution', 'Mr Crowley', 'I Don't Know' and 'Goodbye to Romance' to name just a few. When I compare them to the best on 'Heaven and Hell' there really is no competition for me.
    Same goes for me Requiem.
    "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)

  25. #65

    Default

    I can't decide between the two, thus I haven't voted.

    Ted

  26. #66

    Default

    EASILY Heaven And Hell.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •