He Use To Drop Acid Before Interviews
-
How much has society fucked me when my first thought was "well at least it was mutual abuse and he didn't rape a minor".
No. None of it is okay, what the fuck brain.
It may not be ok, but certainly better than rape. They may have passed on another form of trauma to their kids like every generation before and it may have taken quite a long time but they did finally make things and each other better. Which I think is a good relationship in my book.
From my understanding anyway. Not gonna proclaim to be some Ozzy Osbourne biographer or something.
-
It was a joke based on the stereotype of singers and their ego. There are plenty of other stereotypes about instrumentalists, such as bass players being simple, lead guitarrist that find everything else support for solos, drummers being brutes, keyboardists being music theorists and so on. I thought you'd recognize it but alas.
But sure. You're using hypotheticals for arguments that you think is proof when presented with historical evidence that the frontman was one job of the band and not the entire act. There isn't really much to discuss against something like that. I could invent my own alternative history too. But why.
And it's not very nice to call the rest of the musicians in the band irrelevant and replaceable.
Edit: clarifications
wrote last edited by [email protected]Never once suggested the front man was the entire act. I used a word that you took offence to, "His", which was simply used to refer to the band that Ozzy was a part of not that he "owned" the band. Then I stated my position and defended it. One that is quite valid and accurate for the band and time period. That's generally how discussion works. I didn't make up any alternative history. Without Ozzy Sabbath would not have been what they were. Proven by their lack of success following his departure.
To each their own I suppose, but why.
Edit: damn you certainly have a way of putting words in others mouths. Try stay on track.
-
King Crimson's '21st century schizoid man' came out in '69, after the formation of black Sabbath but before their first album was released, and I think it has a decent claim to being a 'metal' song. There was definitely a vibe for that kind of musical experimentation around that time, although Black Sabbath can claim to be more defining of what 'metal' was.
Anyway yeah, agreed.
You can waste all sorts of time on the net arguing with people about who started what genres. Then you start getting into terms like proto-metal, etc.
No personal issue with your choice because it's a fucking awesome song, but if wanted to be one of those assholes I'd say it's heavy prog rock, in the pool of music metal would later draw from. That said, I'm no musicologist, and somewhere right now there's someone in a black t-shirt with a very cool but difficult to read band name on it reading this, aghast.
I think we can all agree that Black Sabbath is a cornerstone in what metal generally (and specifically sludge, stoner metal, etc.) developed into.
-
King Crimson's '21st century schizoid man' came out in '69, after the formation of black Sabbath but before their first album was released, and I think it has a decent claim to being a 'metal' song. There was definitely a vibe for that kind of musical experimentation around that time, although Black Sabbath can claim to be more defining of what 'metal' was.
Anyway yeah, agreed.
After making that comment, I went and compared first album dates with other bands I thought came out at a similar time, and sabbath was 5 or 10 yrs ahead of them. And Ive no idea when Earth got started. But yea King Crimson and some hippy rock who were getting a little heavier where the only big names I saw listed as metal in 1970.
I stand by he didnt invent it singlehandly, but dam if anyone else could contend for title of Grandfather of metal. I made it to a few ozzfeasts in the late 90s early 00s, great time. He fucking rocked.
-
Well, Christian Vander invented Zeuhl, but he can damn well keep it.
Tbf there are quite a few magnificent MAGMA albums out there. Certainly not as influental as the first four or five Sabbath albums, but on the progressive/psychedelic department, pretty damn good stuff.
-
Never once suggested the front man was the entire act. I used a word that you took offence to, "His", which was simply used to refer to the band that Ozzy was a part of not that he "owned" the band. Then I stated my position and defended it. One that is quite valid and accurate for the band and time period. That's generally how discussion works. I didn't make up any alternative history. Without Ozzy Sabbath would not have been what they were. Proven by their lack of success following his departure.
To each their own I suppose, but why.
Edit: damn you certainly have a way of putting words in others mouths. Try stay on track.
I don't even understand what you are arguing any more because it seems to me that you are full of contradiction. On one hand it is the band of the front man band because "that is how it was", but on the other hand you never said so. I say that there is more to a band than the front man, including the initial comment that Ozzy was recruited because others had the musical vision for it. You maintain the position that it is all the front man, giving example how you dislike what Black Sabbath became post Ozzy, disregarding that Ozzy would not be what he was without the band that brought him up to fame. When I presented a well known and here fact checked case of a front man vs "the band" controversy from close enough the same generation of rock music, you made up an alternative history about Rolling Stones and avoiding the topical discussion about the front man status.
Hence the joke about the singer which I was fit because this would be the position that a singer would hold, though I agree it was unnecessary with the secondary comment of mine that came from frustration from the stated above.
I don't think it is a far leap though that the sum of this implies that the rest of the band members are irrelevant and replaceable, and my only argument is really that they are not and that it is a mistake to argue that they were because of how you subjectively may perceive or have perceived rock acts as audience back in the day.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
You can waste all sorts of time on the net arguing with people about who started what genres. Then you start getting into terms like proto-metal, etc.
No personal issue with your choice because it's a fucking awesome song, but if wanted to be one of those assholes I'd say it's heavy prog rock, in the pool of music metal would later draw from. That said, I'm no musicologist, and somewhere right now there's someone in a black t-shirt with a very cool but difficult to read band name on it reading this, aghast.
I think we can all agree that Black Sabbath is a cornerstone in what metal generally (and specifically sludge, stoner metal, etc.) developed into.
If that song doesn't count, then I think you really do have to hand it to Black Sabbath as the defining progenitor of the genre. Even if it does, it was an impressive exploratory foray; Black Sabbath set up camp.
-
If that song doesn't count, then I think you really do have to hand it to Black Sabbath as the defining progenitor of the genre. Even if it does, it was an impressive exploratory foray; Black Sabbath set up camp.
Stupid thought but BS's first two albums both came out within like 14 months of that song. Perhaps it was the kernel that got their sound together. I wonder if there are any recordings of Sabbath from before the release of that song...
-
This post did not contain any content.
And was married to cunt