Black Sabbath w/ Ozzy VS Black Sabbath w/ Ronnie

[Weyland]

I preffer Ozzy than Dio, but title song from Heaven & Hell is awesome.

[joe_goindienow]

I agree that this an interesting vs.

I think both got more from Sabbath, then Sabbath got from them. I think though Ozzy had to go at the time he did and was smart to do so. Where as Ronnie I think stayed a little too long and then came back for more of what left them to split in the first place. Then Ozzy came back and I think showed what happens if he had stayed too long, though 13 is a good album just not enough of what I loved about Ozzy in Sabbath.  

So I think now for me I appreciate Sabbath with Dio more than I do with Ozzy but if it's not for Ozzy in Sabbath I may never have found metal so Sabbath with Ozzy would be my choice every time.  It's just more Iconic and has the more Iconic tracks for me. 

 

[Requiem]

On 12/01/2017 at 11:42 AM, joe_goindienow said:

I think both got more from Sabbath, then Sabbath got from them. 

 

This is an interesting call and got me thinking.

Both Ozzy and Dio obviously had really great solo careers, and I agree that the basis for these was their work in Sabbath. But if you look at what people think of when discussing Sabbath - yes it's Tony Iommi - but Ozzy for many people is Black Sabbath, and Dio's Sabbath albums are praised to the hills. 

Compare them with the Tony Martin albums. I actually really like the Tony Martin albums and I think there are some fantastic songs on them, but their general lack of popularity just go to show how important great frontmen like Ozzy and Dio were to Black Sabbath. Without them Sabbath was really lost. 

And look what happens when Dio rejoins Sabbath - boom, the Heaven and Hell tour and album. Then Ozzy rejoins and boom - they're one of the biggest touring bands in the world right now. 

So I think in many ways Sabbath relies on Ozzy and Dio more than Ozzy and Dio rely on Sabbath. What do you think? 

 

[OldenAxe]

Black Sabbath with Ozzy was infinitely darker, and arguably invented heavy metal. However, they hit a great stride with Dio. One just cannot deny a song like "After All" for sheer epic nature. Gun to head, I would have to choose Dio Sabbath.

[Amebix]

I'm a big fan of Dio, and solo I'd take Dio over Ozzy any day. But in Black Sabbath, Ozzy's the only way to go for me. Ozzy's voice works perfectly with the doomy sounds of Iommi's guitar, it all blends into this really beautiful concoction. The problem with Dio is, when Dio sings all the attention is on him because his vocal style is so idiosyncratic and has so much personality. Plus, his vocals are kind of soaring, so they seem to pretty much always undercut the doomy Sabbath sound. In other words, Ozzy's voice works perfectly with the instruments, but it feels like Dio's is swimming in a different direction, which IMO sounds awkward and undercuts the power of both.

[Requiem]

15 minutes ago, Amebix said:

I'm a big fan of Dio, and solo I'd take Dio over Ozzy any day. But in Black Sabbath, Ozzy's the only way to go for me. Ozzy's voice works perfectly with the doomy sounds of Iommi's guitar, it all blends into this really beautiful concoction. The problem with Dio is, when Dio sings all the attention is on him because his vocal style is so idiosyncratic and has so much personality. Plus, his vocals are kind of soaring, so they seem to pretty much always undercut the doomy Sabbath sound. In other words, Ozzy's voice works perfectly with the instruments, but it feels like Dio's is swimming in a different direction, which IMO sounds awkward and undercuts the power of both.

This is a really good assessment and I tend to agree with you. 

Ozzy sings along with the chords, whereas Dio sings across them. Some people prefer Dio for this approach and consider it more true 'singing'.

I think the fact that these conversations occur at all is testament to how effective Dio was in Sabbath, because it's usually pretty hard for a replacement vocalist to come in after 8 or so albums and be given any chance of respect (Blaze Bayley, Ripper Owens etc. Ok to great singers, but very few fans would actually argue that they're better than Bruce Dickinson or Rob Halford). With Dio, he's just a cut above the regular replacement vocalist. 

But I'm sticking with Ozzy. His solo albums are also up there with my favourites of all time. Perhaps with the exception of a the last three...

[Skull_Kollektor]

I totally love both. "Heaven and Hell" might as well be my favorite Sabbath album as a whole.

I was lucky enough to attend a Heaven and Hell's gig in 2009 here in Italy.... Jeezebel, I miss Ronnie so much...

At the same time Ozzy's albums with BS are simply FUNDAMENTAL and downright AWESOME.

Some of those songs are cases of less is more. So simple, yet so effective. What a vibe! So many gems... 

I went to see Black Sabbath's first reunion gig in Birmingham in 2012, that was the single best concert of my life... and the most relevant too!

Sharon was in the attendance

[Requiem]

On 24/02/2017 at 8:00 AM, Skull_Kollektor said:

I totally love both. "Heaven and Hell" might as well be my favorite Sabbath album as a whole.

I was lucky enough to attend a Heaven and Hell's gig in 2009 here in Italy.... Jeezebel, I miss Ronnie so much...

At the same time Ozzy's albums with BS are simply FUNDAMENTAL and downright AWESOME.

Some of those songs are cases of less is more. So simple, yet so effective. What a vibe! So many gems... 

I went to see Black Sabbath's first reunion gig in Birmingham in 2012, that was the single best concert of my life... and the most relevant too!

Sharon was in the attendance

They're definitely an amazing phenomenon. The whole story. I saw them on their current tour here in Melbourne because I knew that if I didn't I would live out the rest of my life without seeing them and that would be tragic. It would have been cool if Bill Ward was there though. It just isn't the same...

Just like I would have seen Guns n Roses if they had Izzy and Steve or Matt on drums. As it was I didn't bother. 

[Skull_Kollektor]

Yeah you are right, Izzy in particular is responsible for their best songs, it's a shame he's not part of the reunion... nonetheless, I got me a ticket to see the reunited GNR in Imola next June and I cannot wait to see them...

I was a little kid the first time around, so I couldn't catch them back then (see I was born when Appetite was 1 year old)...

[Requiem]

On 03/03/2017 at 6:32 AM, Skull_Kollektor said:

Yeah you are right, Izzy in particular is responsible for their best songs, it's a shame he's not part of the reunion... nonetheless, I got me a ticket to see the reunited GNR in Imola next June and I cannot wait to see them...

I was a little kid the first time around, so I couldn't catch them back then (see I was born when Appetite was 1 year old)...

I was 7 when Appetite came out, so yeah I missed their first wave (87-92). The Melbourne show the other week was at our largest sporting ground which puts me off a bit (the size of the venue, not the fact that it's to do with sports). Maybe I should have just gone though. 

[Arbiter]

I Don't think one's better than the other, Sure Ozzy Fronted Sabbath is the Original Line Up and are total Legends for bringing us Metal, I view Sabbath as a band that fought through the years with the obstacles thrown at them [Numerous Line Ups changes etc] and probably not correct way of wording but "Moved with the times" through the years changing the Sound slightly here and there, but still keeping that Sabbath Sound [thanks to Iommi] I love all Era's of Sabbath equally Ozzy's, Dio's, Tony Martin's, Ian Gillan's stint, Glenn Hughes unintentional stint, Ray Gillen recordings of Eternal Idol, so i may be a lil biased as they are my fav Metal band of all time, but i don't compare, as they're not going to Sound or be the same, as long as they created Good music that i could headbang too lol and sing along here and there i'm happy and they did for me

[Requiem]

On 10/03/2017 at 10:21 AM, Arbiter said:

I Don't think one's better than the other, Sure Ozzy Fronted Sabbath is the Original Line Up and are total Legends for bringing us Metal, I view Sabbath as a band that fought through the years with the obstacles thrown at them [Numerous Line Ups changes etc] and probably not correct way of wording but "Moved with the times" through the years changing the Sound slightly here and there, but still keeping that Sabbath Sound [thanks to Iommi] I love all Era's of Sabbath equally Ozzy's, Dio's, Tony Martin's, Ian Gillan's stint, Glenn Hughes unintentional stint, Ray Gillen recordings of Eternal Idol, so i may be a lil biased as they are my fav Metal band of all time, but i don't compare, as they're not going to Sound or be the same, as long as they created Good music that i could headbang too lol and sing along here and there i'm happy and they did for me

Apparently there are some talks to re-release the Tony Martin era material. I'm really hoping that becomes a reality because I'm a recent convert to great albums like 'Headless Cross' and 'Cross Purposes' and would love to get my hands on deluxe editions etc. 

[Skull_Kollektor]

On the one hand I am super glad about that because those are all exceptional records (save for "Forbidden", the only Sabbath album I do not own).

On the other hand, being an elitist fuck, this will mean that possessing original IRS copies of "Headless Cross", "TYR" and "Cross Purposes" will not be exclusive anymore eheh. And no, I am not counting the "Classic Rock" reissues.

Just kidding, I am glad period because these deluxe editions always come with great bonuses. When I say "these" I refer to the post-Ozzy ones. I have all of them, including the Ozzy ones, but those do not have any interesting bonus. They're filled with useless alternate takes and mixes. They say it's because of Sharon. They say that she owns the right to eventual proper unreleased tracks (either live or studio) of the Ozzy era and she did not let Universal use them.

I do not know if it's true, but it is a fact that the reissues from "Heaven and Hell" onwards are all crammed with great unreleased material (except "Live Evil"). Those unreleased tracks are a great companion to the Tony Iommi book "Iron Man".

[Requiem]

16 hours ago, Skull_Kollektor said:

On the one hand I am super glad about that because those are all exceptional records (save for "Forbidden", the only Sabbath album I do not own).

On the other hand, being an elitist fuck, this will mean that possessing original IRS copies of "Headless Cross", "TYR" and "Cross Purposes" will not be exclusive anymore eheh. And no, I am not counting the "Classic Rock" reissues.

Just kidding, I am glad period because these deluxe editions always come with great bonuses. When I say "these" I refer to the post-Ozzy ones. I have all of them, including the Ozzy ones, but those do not have any interesting bonus. They're filled with useless alternate takes and mixes. They say it's because of Sharon. They say that she owns the right to eventual proper unreleased tracks (either live or studio) of the Ozzy era and she did not let Universal use them.

I do not know if it's true, but it is a fact that the reissues from "Heaven and Hell" onwards are all crammed with great unreleased material (except "Live Evil"). Those unreleased tracks are a great companion to the Tony Iommi book "Iron Man".

I don't know, 'Forbidden' is actually not as bad as most people make out. Ice T is only on the first track if I recall correctly and there are actually some pretty good riffs at times. I don't own it either but I think it gets a really bad rap (pardon the pun).

Put it this way, once the new albums come out your IRS releases will become kvlt items and possibly even more collectible. Maybe...?

And yes, Sharon won't be putting out any goodies she can make money off later on! Skull, have you read Bob Daisley's book 'For Facts Sake'? Amazing expose of how the 80s and 90s era Ozzy/Sharon machine functioned - at the expense of their collaborators. The 'Iron Man' book is good fun. Also Mick Wall's recent biography on Black Sabbath 'Symptom of the Universe' is brilliant. Have you read it?

Great posts man. I like what you have to say about metal.

[Skull_Kollektor]

I will have to check out those two books! I only read Iommi's and Osbourne's ("I am Ozzy")...

Thanks, it feels good to chat with like-minded people!

[Requiem]

On 14/03/2017 at 6:35 AM, Skull_Kollektor said:

I will have to check out those two books! I only read Iommi's and Osbourne's ("I am Ozzy")...

Thanks, it feels good to chat with like-minded people!

I delayed reading I Am Ozzy for ages because I knew it should have been called I Am Sharon. Ozzy can't tell what day it is let alone remember and recount events from 40 years ago. Still, I read it although I borrowed it from the library in protest. I fucking love Ozzy with all my heart, but let's face it, his limit of literary achievement is completing a join the dots picture...

[H34VYM3T4LD4V3]

On 12/03/2017 at 5:32 AM, Requiem said:

Apparently there are some talks to re-release the Tony Martin era material. I'm really hoping that becomes a reality because I'm a recent convert to great albums like 'Headless Cross' and 'Cross Purposes' and would love to get my hands on deluxe editions etc. 

Personally I think Headless Cross is a masterpiece, not quite Sabotage or Paranoid, but I love every song on there (especially Headless Cross, When Death Calls and Black Moon). I think Tony Martin is an awesome and very underrated vocalist, I need to listen to the other albums more.

[Skull_Kollektor]

8 hours ago, H34VYM3T4LD4V3 said:

Personally I think Headless Cross is a masterpiece, not quite Sabotage or Paranoid, but I love every song on there (especially Headless Cross, When Death Calls and Black Moon). I think Tony Martin is an awesome and very underrated vocalist, I need to listen to the other albums more.

Hell yeah! And "When Death Calls" even features Brian May!

Could you believe I'd rather sit through "Headless Cross" than "Sabotage"? There are some impossibly good tracks on "Sabotage" (side A: "Hoke in the Sky", "Symptom of the Universe" and "Megalomania"), but I was never a huge fan of side B! Also, I prefer the guitar tone Iommi had up until "Vol. 4"... You know, that feeling of looseness...

"Headless Cross" is so drenched in reverb and everything 80's that I cannot but love it!

[Requiem]

27 minutes ago, Skull_Kollektor said:

Hell yeah! And "When Death Calls" even features Brian May!

Could you believe I'd rather sit through "Headless Cross" than "Sabotage"? There are some impossibly good tracks on "Sabotage" (side A: "Hoke in the Sky", "Symptom of the Universe" and "Megalomania"), but I was never a huge fan of side B! Also, I prefer the guitar tone Iommi had up until "Vol. 4"... You know, that feeling of looseness...

"Headless Cross" is so drenched in reverb and everything 80's that I cannot but love it!

'Headless Cross' is great. That whole era really appeals to me these days, too. Just fascinating.

Comparing it to 'Sabotage' is a tough one though. That's a brilliant album. Did you know that Martin Popoff, the ubiquitous and record breaking music critic, rates 'Sabotage' as the single greatest heavy metal album of all time? It's true.

[Skull_Kollektor]

I do not rate Popoff AT ALL. I find it very appalling whenever I read his name.

Just check the wikipedia page... it's so obvious he did it himself! 

How can someone possibly take him seriously? He gave "Hysteria" a 0!

I am fine with other people opinions, naturally, what I do not like is someone whose credentials are exactly those of any other music fan (like me or you) pretending to be a music critic or historian or whatever.

I actually have one of his books. It's called "Fade to Black", it's a book about heavy rock LP sleeves. I liked the layout and it was real cheap, so I got it, but that's it.

Back to "Sabotage"... side B bores me... "Symptom of the Universe" alone is a fundamental achievement in heavy metal, though.

[Requiem]

34 minutes ago, Skull_Kollektor said:

I do not rate Popoff AT ALL. I find it very appalling whenever I read his name.

Just check the wikipedia page... it's so obvious he did it himself! 

How can someone possibly take him seriously? He gave "Hysteria" a 0!

I am fine with other people opinions, naturally, what I do not like is someone whose credentials are exactly those of any other music fan (like me or you) pretending to be a music critic or historian or whatever.

I actually have one of his books. It's called "Fade to Black", it's a book about heavy rock LP sleeves. I liked the layout and it was real cheap, so I got it, but that's it.

Back to "Sabotage"... side B bores me... "Symptom of the Universe" alone is a fundamental achievement in heavy metal, though.

Well I guess that's the problem with any critic, they don't really have any god-given credentials to support or pan a particular release. I like Popoff because of his willingness to approach things without industry pressure. I hadn't realised that he gave 'Hysteria' a 0, which is hilarious. I don't take his ratings personally but I'm always interested in his justifications. One thing about his books though - because he puts so many out they do feel a little rushed and slapdash sometimes. I've got a couple of them, including the Ozzy day-by-day and the Black Sabbath FAQ, which are just great. 

Now I want to go and listen to 'Hysteria'. 

[Skull_Kollektor]

I love to read books about music too and every month I get my copy of Classic Rock Magazine from the UK, but somehow I can't be sold on Popoff. It's like "where was he before the internet?". Precisely, nowhere (in Canada, that is). I can't be bothered by his writing because his sources for everything are exactly those of any metalhead (old magazines, CD booklets, internet). It's not like he was out there in the first place writing for actual magazines and following bands on the road.

I like books, articles, reviews, interviews by the Malcolm Dome's, the Eddie Trunk's, the Dave Thompson's, the Geoff Barton's the Mick Wall's, the Xavier Russell's and so on. I am also fine with new journo's, but let them be journo's! Reading Popoff, to me, is like reading users' reviews on Amazon and band bio's on wikipedia.

Also, it's ridiculous how he brags about quantity all the time.

[Requiem]

On 18/03/2017 at 7:17 PM, Skull_Kollektor said:

I love to read books about music too and every month I get my copy of Classic Rock Magazine from the UK, but somehow I can't be sold on Popoff. It's like "where was he before the internet?". Precisely, nowhere (in Canada, that is). I can't be bothered by his writing because his sources for everything are exactly those of any metalhead (old magazines, CD booklets, internet). It's not like he was out there in the first place writing for actual magazines and following bands on the road.

I like books, articles, reviews, interviews by the Malcolm Dome's, the Eddie Trunk's, the Dave Thompson's, the Geoff Barton's the Mick Wall's, the Xavier Russell's and so on. I am also fine with new journo's, but let them be journo's! Reading Popoff, to me, is like reading users' reviews on Amazon and band bio's on wikipedia.

Also, it's ridiculous how he brags about quantity all the time.

Ok, so what happened? Did Popoff date your mother for a while or something? I'm sensing a lot of deep hurt and animosity here hahahaha. You like nearly every other major metal journalist except Popoff! 

You ask where he was before the internet - isn't he the creator of the 'Brave Words and Bloody Knuckles' magazine from way back in the day? Not that I think this gives him any more or any less credibility when it comes to writing about music, but he has definitely worked in print media and has a role in creating one of the world's best known magazines.

Now look what you've done, I'm cheerleading for Martin Popoff, who I don't particularly like that much anyway. 

At any rate, I'd rather read a Popoff review than something written by a 23 year old 'reviewer' for Terrorizer or Metal Hammer. 

I wish we were talking about this in the Metal Books forum. Maybe I'll start something over there (like Popoff started something with yo mamma). 

[Skull_Kollektor]

ahahah nice jokes!

Never heard of brave words and bloody knuckles! Tell you what... It's very simple. That Popoff dude is kind of alright, BUT what he misses is real time journalism. That's why I consider him on par with an average Joe reviewing on Amazon, except that this fella self promotes himself on wikipedia!

Popoff was never the guy that followed bands on tour and shit like that. So I don't need Popoffs, I need people that can report. People that made a difference. People whose coverage back in the day could make or break a career. Of course I don't make my opinion on records based on reviews, but I do love trivia and I wanna hear/read it about from first hand sources! If Popoff was doing some sort of academically soundproof stuff (like referencing everything), then I would appreciate it. He is not. He is writing bio's of people he never met. 

I am pretty sure that a Mick Wall in person could be an unbearable smartass with an oversized ego for nothing (writing about music will never be like PLAYING music), but to very least he would have stories to share. Like interview anecdotes and the like.

C'mon' Popoff always goes around saying he played drums in a band... Who the fuck would point that out every single time in his resume if his main claim to "fame" is having reviewed shitloads of records? It's as if every time you interview Steve Harris he starts off by saying that as a kid he fancied football. Does he do that? Nope. Do we all know that? Yes. Why is it? Because he's fucking Steve Harris, we ARE meant to know useless shit about him.

Lemme tell ya once and for all: Popoff is a scam. Casual readers take note. Don't waste money on useless rehashed books. Invest money on actual records OR VINTAGE MAGAZINES from back in the day. Even the gossipy stuff like Hit Parader, Circus and Creem!

[Requiem]

10 hours ago, Skull_Kollektor said:

ahahah nice jokes!

Never heard of brave words and bloody knuckles! Tell you what... It's very simple. That Popoff dude is kind of alright, BUT what he misses is real time journalism. That's why I consider him on par with an average Joe reviewing on Amazon, except that this fella self promotes himself on wikipedia!

Popoff was never the guy that followed bands on tour and shit like that. So I don't need Popoffs, I need people that can report. People that made a difference. People whose coverage back in the day could make or break a career. Of course I don't make my opinion on records based on reviews, but I do love trivia and I wanna hear/read it about from first hand sources! If Popoff was doing some sort of academically soundproof stuff (like referencing everything), then I would appreciate it. He is not. He is writing bio's of people he never met. 

I am pretty sure that a Mick Wall in person could be an unbearable smartass with an oversized ego for nothing (writing about music will never be like PLAYING music), but to very least he would have stories to share. Like interview anecdotes and the like.

C'mon' Popoff always goes around saying he played drums in a band... Who the fuck would point that out every single time in his resume if his main claim to "fame" is having reviewed shitloads of records? It's as if every time you interview Steve Harris he starts off by saying that as a kid he fancied football. Does he do that? Nope. Do we all know that? Yes. Why is it? Because he's fucking Steve Harris, we ARE meant to know useless shit about him.

Lemme tell ya once and for all: Popoff is a scam. Casual readers take note. Don't waste money on useless rehashed books. Invest money on actual records OR VINTAGE MAGAZINES from back in the day. Even the gossipy stuff like Hit Parader, Circus and Creem!

Vintage magazines like Brave Words and Bloody Knuckles? How can you be so willing to criticise him when you don't even know that he was a creator of one of the world's best known magazines pre Internet? He met and interviewed countless bands as editor of this real life paper magazine! 

If for some reason this magazine escaped you in Italy then fine, but maybe there is more to Popoff's story than you realise. 

The guy has devoted his life to researching and writing about metal bands. He is a published author of dozens of books. I don't think this is the same as a random Amazon reviewer. 

At the end of the day, even guys like Mick Wall (who has tonnes of haters, although I'm a fan) are just stating opinions about music they are listening to. It's hardly a science for crying out loud. 

If Popoff talks about the drums too much (which by the way is a strange thing to claim because I've never noticed it), then what about Mick Wall's constant insistence that he partied with all the stars? Most of his books these days are based on his imagined rock stardom, and all he did was host crappy interviews on Sky and write crappy articles for Kerang of all things!

Cut Popoff some slack bro and track down some old copies of Brave Words and Bloody Knuckles.