Re: This isn't a hard concept to understand Ben

Date:2017-07-18 01:12:35
Edited:2017-07-18 01:13:30
In Reply To:Re: So being that your premise is intrinsically flawed... by BenMech
That's not the point of this discussion. My premise is: prior to 1980 the only change is the absence of BS. Every other band: Judas Priest, Scorpions, Queen, and (perhaps the most relevant to this discussion) Rainbow go just like they did in real life.
Explain how.
That's the basic condition of the question. Just accept it and begin with 1980. Or make your own thread.
No, cannot "just accept" this. You haven't named an alternative path. If you had said "Deep Purple and Uriah Heep and King Crimson as the foundations and their work through the 1970s..."

But you haven't.

Black Sabbath's effect on music is well documented. That's not the point here.
The question is: how would we rank / perceive
Sabbath if they dropped on this earth in 1980 with "Heaven & Hell"?
Wouldn't get there.
I don't know what this means. Who wouldn't get where?
That's because your whole idea is flawed. Black Sabbath debuting circa H&H would not exist without some portion of the Ozzy years preceding.

Hypothetically speaking. That is what he's getting at. In other words would that same album have gotten the exposure that it did without the Ozzy era existing beforehand. This isn't a tough concept to follow.

Imagine Black Sabbath came out as a new band in 1980 with the album Heaven & Hell. Would it have gotten the same recognition. We know in reality H&H probably wouldn't exist in real life without the ozzy era. What he is getting at and I will repeat this one more time is a different reality if Sabbath was a brand new band in 1980 and H&H was their debut album would they be as recognized as they are now and how does one think they would be perceived?

That is what Vadim is getting that.
Main Page