Re: Cross-posted: Black Sabbath without the 70s?


Author:Nosferatwo
Date:2017-07-15 11:09:10
In Reply To:Re: Cross-posted: Black Sabbath without the 70s? by Thy Sentinel
Views:52
No. Those albums never got attention, because they weren't what people wanted to hear. They're ok, but that's about it.
That's exactly it. "Not what people wanted to hear" = "compared to the 70s Sabbath." Without 70s Sabbath to compare to, these albums might actually do better.
I meant it as being not at all with what was going on at the time, and boring to most listeners. The Sabbath name gave Tony Martin more marketing than he could have ever expected, and his material simply didn't deliver. If those albums were great and of the time, they would have found success. Dio managed to do it with Sabbath.
If Ozzy (as washed-up as he was by then) joins them
for the first time in 1997, there is still Ozzfest and all the subsequent events. Although in this scenario he does not "join Black Sabbath", but rather just calls it his backup band.
Umm... if there was no 70s Sabbath, there would have been no Ozzy solo career, so still no Ozzfest.
In this alternate universe, Ozzy hits the ground running with "Blizzard of Ozz." He has a terrific 80s career. Like I said, in 1997, most likely, Iommi, Ward, and Butler become his backup musicians.
So in your alternate reality, Ozzy somehow falls out of the sky in 1980 with a major label deal, and access to any musician he wants to work with, despite being a nobody who never did anything in music before? Come on, if we're going to theorize, you have to be realistic. "Blizzard Of Ozz" only happened because of his fame with Sabbath. You know that.
Quote
 | 
Block-Quote
 | 
Reply
 | 
Main Page
 ]