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

Author:Thy Sentinel
Date:2017-07-15 15:52:57
In Reply To:Re: Cross-posted: Black Sabbath without the 70s? by Nosferatwo
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.
Both Crimson Glory albums were great and of the time (not to mention timeless), yet had very little commercial success.
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.
That's not exactly true either. Traditionally lead singers of star bands do not do well going solo. Ozzy is the only exception that I can think of: a man who has completely destroyed his former star act.

In 1979 Ozzy was done. Randy Rhoads was not exactly a household name either: Quiet Riot hasn't had an American deal yet. That's regarding "any musician he wants to work with."

But it all doesn't matter. In my parallel universe, both Ozzy and Sabbath start about the same time, in 79-80. Ozzy drastically outsells and outperforms Sabbath. Despite the fact that I personally prefer Ozzy-less Sabbath to Ozzy.


"The horizon is my finish line, the very edge of earth" ("Vysotsky in English" project,
Main Page