Black Sabbath - *The official thread*

Boris2008 wrote:

In an era when even Metallica aren't selling out their shows, this on YouTube could be really bad news for the tour.

Then again, it's Sabbath.

The Los Angeles show sold out so quickly they added an additional date in Irvine, I don't think they'll have any trouble selling out this tour.

Sometimes I wonder if Black Sabbath came out as a new band releasing the Black Sabbath album in 2013 instead of 1970 would people still rag on Ozzy's voice like they do. I mean it sounds bad now, but when was it ever good ? I mean I caught a few Ozzy era shows, some solo shows and he had alot more bad days than good.

The only live I've seen of Sabbath is the California Jam (74 or 75), and while he wasn't hitting perfect pitch, he was far and away more listenable than the above clips. Of course, he was all over the stage too but can't do much about that now.

Again, most of the youtube comments seem to suggest he was competent for most the night, and that the new tunes were his weak spots.

That California Jam was my very first concert. I was more blown away by Deep Purple and Black Oak Arkansas than any other band there that day. Shortly thereafter, I started getting Sabbath albums and my interest was more into what they were doing than either of those bands.

As far as Ozzy singing goes, my best experiences were on the first Blizzard Of Oz tour (when it was still a band) He had a few years of not singing and that proverbial fire lit under the @$$ (IMHDO) and it showed. The tours I saw after that up till "Ultimate Sin", he was pretty much "Ozzy". Hit and miss throughout the show, the exception(s) being whatever tune was big on MTV at the time. There is a reason why they never released any "official" live recordings with Ozzy fronting Sabbath. The "Live At Last" is probably one of the best known and best selling bootlegs ever.

For this new Sabbath album, my digging the vibe of the two songs I've heard makes it worth the while for me at least. Sabbath is a vibe band (IMHDO) Each album with Ozzy pretty much has it's own vibe. These guys are in their 60's and it's unreasonable to expect certain things from them aside from writing good songs. Which in the end is what really matters.

James B. wrote:

The "Live At Last" is probably one of the best known and best selling bootlegs ever.

The "Asbury Park" bootleg (FM broadcast) from August 5th, 1975 blows away Live At Last in every conceivable way. Ozzy still basically sucks...but the band is ON FIRE! They should have released that entire concert instead of just using 3 tracks for the Past Lives compilation.

James B. wrote:

Sometimes I wonder if Black Sabbath came out as a new band releasing the Black Sabbath album in 2013 instead of 1970 would people still rag on Ozzy's voice like they do.

It's this whole internet, audiophile, "critique the hell out of everything" attitude that has developed over the last several years. I never, ever remember me and my friends cranking Crue or Ratt or Van Halen and saying things like "that mix is subpar" or "the songwriting is is low quality"...we just cranked it and loved it! We loved the vibe...these days people bypass the vibe and go straight for the micro-critiquing.

Eyesore wrote:

Ozzy is high or drunk. You can hear it in his voice.

These guys need to tour out this album, then reform Heaven and Hell with Jorn on vocals.

Rather hear more "Iommi" w/Glen Hughes.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

James B. wrote:

Sometimes I wonder if Black Sabbath came out as a new band releasing the Black Sabbath album in 2013 instead of 1970 would people still rag on Ozzy's voice like they do.

It's this whole internet, audiophile, "critique the hell out of everything" attitude that has developed over the last several years. I never, ever remember me and my friends cranking Crue or Ratt or Van Halen and saying things like "that mix is subpar" or "the songwriting is is low quality"...we just cranked it and loved it! We loved the vibe...these days people bypass the vibe and go straight for the micro-critiquing.

Probably more so now, but I had issues w/the "Born Again" mix, and saw the decline in songwriting w/Ozzy after the second lp...others as well, it's just now w/have a platform to discuss such things w/a lot of people we never did before...

S.D. wrote:

James B. wrote:

The "Live At Last" is probably one of the best known and best selling bootlegs ever.

The "Asbury Park" bootleg (FM broadcast) from August 5th, 1975 blows away Live At Last in every conceivable way. Ozzy still basically sucks...but the band is ON FIRE! They should have released that entire concert instead of just using 3 tracks for the Past Lives compilation.

yeah I think the audio/ video footage I have on an external hard drive has that particular show on it. "Live AT Last" is the only bootleg I have on both vinyl and cassette. Like the other Shawn stated, us teens were glad to have it and the sound quality didn't matter much. It was Sabbath

candlemass wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

James B. wrote:

Sometimes I wonder if Black Sabbath came out as a new band releasing the Black Sabbath album in 2013 instead of 1970 would people still rag on Ozzy's voice like they do.

It's this whole internet, audiophile, "critique the hell out of everything" attitude that has developed over the last several years. I never, ever remember me and my friends cranking Crue or Ratt or Van Halen and saying things like "that mix is subpar" or "the songwriting is is low quality"...we just cranked it and loved it! We loved the vibe...these days people bypass the vibe and go straight for the micro-critiquing.

it's just now w/have a platform to discuss such things w/a lot of people we never did before...

I don't buy that. On the whole, I see more people online spend more time complaining about a mix or "production" or a tone or artwork or a "squashed" master or "songwriting" or a CDR or comparing WAV files or some other such bull$h!t than listening to or enjoying music for what it is.

A lot of the time, I believe some of these people are just parroting someone else, thinking they can hear things that aren't there. The internet doesn't so much offer a "platform for discussion" as much as turn everyone and their brother into armchair music critics.

There are people like S.D. who have super-sonic bat ears (trained ears) that will hear things on the technical side that are legit, I'm not discounting that. But most people don't possess those kinds of super-sensitive, highly trained faculties...they're just repeating something someone else said and trying to justify their own opinion. It's OK to just say "I don't like it" without feeling the need to launch into rhetoric and sound like one knows more than they actually do...that's just self-serving.

It's like we've forgotten how to enjoy music.

It's very much akin to wine or beer or anything that carries minute nuances that add up to a crafted whole. Some guys may like Miller, or let's say Newcastle because they enjoy the tast of beer. Then there are those who appreciate the craft of a brew and go deeper into different styles and can tell you the diacetyl-to-ph ratio and whether it's off or not in a particular ale, or they'll tell you exactly what blend of hops were used and whether it's a good fit for an IPA etc etc etc. Same thing with audiophiles and music. I agree there are those that are arrogant about it all but judging from SD's posts he seems to represent those that I respect, balanced and respectful of those who don't have that ear. Let's not forget that the ear can be trained to hear these differences as the tongue can become accustomed to the tannin spectrum and can readily notice the slightest contrast in two houses of equally priced wine.

All in all, it's supposed to be a fun and interesting hobby, and not the final authority on what is good music or not.

EDIT: I should add that I'm not disagreeing with Shawn here, just want to being Audiophilia back to its roots.

Hang on a minute, are we suggesting that you need specially trained super bat ears to hear that Ozzy is quite clearly off his head and cant hold a single note, on the live tracks posted?

You are right, when I heard lousy production back in the day, I cared less than I do now, and when I thought that it sounded lousy, I would just say that. I pretty much still do, but I appreciate those with a lot more knowledge than me, telling me why it sounds like . The same with discussions about mp3, flac, wav, etc. This has helped me and increased my enjoyment of music on the go. If it doesn't interest you then why not just not read it?

I find it strange that some have a problem discussing music in a nuts and bolts sense on a music forum.

Quote :

Let's not forget that the ear can be trained to hear these differences

Absolutely.

Quote :

Hang on a minute, are we suggesting that you need specially trained super bat ears to hear that Ozzy is quite clearly off his head and cant hold a single note, on the live tracks posted?

Out of key or whatever, pointing out things like being out of tune or things like that...fine...people should be in tune. I'm just talking about (and here's where I will no doubt sound arrogant) people who are not trained, are not musicians, who do not write songs, etc who micro-critique music. It's like walking into a house, not liking the color of the paint on the walls, and saying "the construction on this home is subpar". All they know is they don't like the color...they don't know a thing about construction.

This is different than not liking something. I have no problem with anyone not liking anything. Say it sucks, say you don't like it...opinions are opinions. But don't pretend or be self-deceived into thinking you (in general) know more about the "nuts and bolts" of things that are being criticized to death than you actually do.

It's like beer (as was brought up). I don't know enough about the crafting of beer to comment on it. I just know what I like.

I don't pretend, to know more than I do. I just find it interesting to hear from those that do. The only way that anyone knows anything is by learning from those that do know. If you disagree with that person and think that they are over playing their knowledge on the subject, I for one would be interested to hear why you think that.

You seem to be saying that we shouldn't have an opinion because we're not experts like you. But we do have opinions, that's why we're an a music forum, because we love music and have an interest to learn more.

Boris2008 wrote:

You seem to be saying that we shouldn't have an opinion because we're not experts like you. But we do have opinions, that's why we're an a music forum, because we love music and have an interest to learn more.

I was very clear in that I was not talking about opinions. Opinions, saying things like "I think that sucks" or "I think that sounds like ass" or "I hate that song" or "I think that bass tone is bad", are completely different than someone commenting on something they are not knowledgeable of.

People learn things and pick up things as they go, but without empirical knowledge of something, actually doing it, it can't be known or be knowledgeably commented on. I've picked up a little guitar and bass over the years, but I don't know enough about it to micro-critique someone who has played guitar for 30 years and would never begin to.

And I'm not necessarily saying I'm an "expert", just that I have at least done it...I've written songs, I've made records, I've mixed live sound, I have some sort of first-hand knowledge and experience to base some of my comments on. I would never make statements about Db levels, or frequencies clashing, or anything that detailed because I don't know anything about that and it would potentially insult those who DO know about it. That's how I feel when someone who has never written a song in their life or even plays an instrument hears a record that's not even one of mine and says "That is an example of subpar songwriting"...WTF do they know about songwriting? It's OK if they don't like it...nobody likes everything. But just because someone doesn't like a song doesn't mean it's poorly written...it just means they don't like it.

Make sense?

I think Shawn is claiming not to be an expert, just a lover of music, and that there is such a thing as "trendy audiophiles" who are kind of like those people who can spout of a thousand indie bands they claim to be experts on but really never heard a single one. In other words, there's some poseurs in the audiophile world that tend to sour or taint the "brew." Am I right?

Let me put it like this:

If ToB, or Ult, or anyone else here who makes music and writes songs hears a song and states "That's an example of poor songwriting", that's an opinion based on empirical knowledge...having done it and possessing an understanding of what it takes to write a song. They hear a song, don't like it, and based on their own actual experience state why they don't like it.

If someone who has never written a song in their life makes the same comment, it's not an opinion...it's a statement of almost arrogant ignorance. Not that the person is stupid, but that the person has no knowledge of how to write a song or what goes into writing a song, but they feel qualified to comment on how it's written simply because maybe they don't like the song.

Using the beer example, if I tried a craft beer, did not like it, and said "Man, that is a poorly brewed beer", I would be insinuating that the person that brewed it did not know what they were doing and did something wrong. How would I know that? I would not. I only know I don't like it. Maybe they did everything right and I just don't like it. Me not liking it does not give me qualification to comment on how it was brewed unless I know something about brewing beer.

Make sense?

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Let me put it like this:

If ToB, or Ult, or anyone else here who makes music and writes songs hears a song and states "That's an example of poor songwriting", that's an opinion based on empirical knowledge...having done it and possessing an understanding of what it takes to write a song. They hear a song, don't like it, and based on their own actual experience state why they don't like it.

If someone who has never written a song in their life makes the same comment, it's not an opinion...it's a statement of almost arrogant ignorance. Not that the person is stupid, but that the person has no knowledge of how to write a song or what goes into writing a song, but they feel qualified to comment on how it's written simply because maybe they don't like the song.

Using the beer example, if I tried a craft beer, did not like it, and said "Man, that is a poorly brewed beer", I would be insinuating that the person that brewed it did not know what they were doing and did something wrong. How would I know that? I would not. I only know I don't like it. Maybe they did everything right and I just don't like it. Me not liking it does not give me qualification to comment on how it was brewed unless I know something about brewing beer.

Make sense?

I'm sorry, Shawn, but I disagree. there are plenty of examples in life where you don't have to be an expert to see (or hear) that the craftsmanship is poorly executed. I don't have to venture further than to my own craft. If we, at my job, paint your car blue, when it is red, then we have done a poor job, and you will be able to see it, even though you have never tempted to try doing this yourself in any way, shape of form.

When I hear a song, I can have an opinion whether or not the song is well written, well played etc., even though I don't do any of these things myself.

I'm with Kmorg on this. For instance, ToB has said that Symphony X can't write good songs, but Ivthink he's dead wrong. Even if I've never written a song or have had any collaboration on one, that doesn't make my opinion less valid than his.

kmorg wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Let me put it like this:

If ToB, or Ult, or anyone else here who makes music and writes songs hears a song and states "That's an example of poor songwriting", that's an opinion based on empirical knowledge...having done it and possessing an understanding of what it takes to write a song. They hear a song, don't like it, and based on their own actual experience state why they don't like it.

If someone who has never written a song in their life makes the same comment, it's not an opinion...it's a statement of almost arrogant ignorance. Not that the person is stupid, but that the person has no knowledge of how to write a song or what goes into writing a song, but they feel qualified to comment on how it's written simply because maybe they don't like the song.

Using the beer example, if I tried a craft beer, did not like it, and said "Man, that is a poorly brewed beer", I would be insinuating that the person that brewed it did not know what they were doing and did something wrong. How would I know that? I would not. I only know I don't like it. Maybe they did everything right and I just don't like it. Me not liking it does not give me qualification to comment on how it was brewed unless I know something about brewing beer.

Make sense?

I'm sorry, Shawn, but I disagree. there are plenty of examples in life where you don't have to be an expert to see (or hear) that the craftsmanship is poorly executed. I don't have to venture further than to my own craft. If we, at my job, paint your car blue, when it is red, then we have done a poor job, and you will be able to see it, even though you have never tempted to try doing this yourself in any way, shape of form.

When I hear a song, I can have an opinion whether or not the song is well written, well played etc., even though I don't do any of these things myself.

Painting a car blue when it was supposed to be red is not the same thing as writing a song and having someone not like it. Painting a car the right color is not open to interpretation, it's a cut and dried, right or wrong issue. It was supposed to be red, but it was painted blue...something was done blatantly incorrectly. You don't have to know how to paint cars to know the work order said "paint it blue".

You don't have to know how to write songs to don't if you don't like a song. You either like a song or you don't. But if you don't know how to write a song, you don't know if it's constructed well or not...you just don't like it...which is fine.

Everyone is completely missing my point...and I don't know how to be any more clear.

Having an OPINION on something is fine. "I THINK that's a bad song"..."I THINK that song sucks"..."IN MY OPINION, the vocals are bad". The phrases "I THINK" and "IN MY OPINION" make those statements valid opinions expressed from a singular perspective and I have never stated people can't have opinions.

BUT -

Let me ask (using the car painting analogy): If I saw a purple car that you painted, and just because I don't like purple, stated "That Kurt guy sucks at painting cars", would I be qualified or justified in that statement? Would that simply be a matter of opinion if, just because I did not like purple, I commented on your ability to paint and how good you are at what you do? Or would I sound like an @$$hole?

Yeah, it makes sense, we all have areas of personal expertise where we are trained and therefore have a better appreciation of the nuances that then form our opinions (my training is in Psychology and EVERYONE thinks that they are an expert in that! )

However, there are some things that are blatantly obvious, even to the layman. Am I wrong to say that Metallica put the bass waaay too low in the mix on AJFA and this spoiled (for me) what could have been a great album, or should I just say that the album sucks, despite it having some great playing and great songs? Am I not allowed to say that Dan Brown is a terrible author who's books read like a five year old has written them because i haven't written a book myself? I have read enough great books to know that this is true.

The thing about db levels makes me laugh though because having everything ramped up to the max was how I listened to everything as a kid. My dad would come home to find all of the settings that he had carefully set on the graphic equalizer were gone, replaced by my maximum is best policy (but these go to eleven! ) So I would never claim to be an expert.

I do think that you inevitably become more picky as you get older and a lot more things in music bother me and the better a stereo is, the more likely you are to find fault, like playing mp3's through it. I had a really cheap and nasty stereo growing up, but it didn't stop me from enjoying the music I loved. It would annoy the hell out of me now though.

DallasBlack wrote:

I'm with Kmorg on this. For instance, ToB has said that Symphony X can't write good songs, but Ivthink he's dead wrong. Even if I've never written a song or have had any collaboration on one, that doesn't make my opinion less valid than his.

The difference there is "good" vs "bad", which is completely subjective regardless of whether someone can write songs or not. If someone likes something, it's "good", if they don't it's "bad". Whatever.

Saying "I don't like this song" is completely different than saying "I don't like the songwriting on that song"...one requires a level of knowledge, one does not.

Quote :

However, there are some things that are blatantly obvious, even to the layman. Am I wrong to say that Metallica put the bass waaay too low in the mix on AJFA and this spoiled (for me) what could have been a great album

That's an opinion, exactly. "FOR YOU", you would have liked it better if the bass was louder. Even if you said "I think it sucks" can't really be argued because you at least know why...the bass wasn't loud enough "FOR YOU" to thoroughly enjoy the songs.

Quote :

Am I not allowed to say that Dan Brown is a terrible author who's books read like a five year old has written them because i haven't written a book myself? I have read enough great books to know that this is true.

I don't know crap about books.

Listen, I think The Beatles are the greatest band in history, others think they are overrated. All that means is I like them more then most people...doesn't mean I'm right (even though I think I am... )

You know what, in the end, I suppose that it's only my OPINION that one should have at least some basic knowledge of something in order to be qualified to comment on it...so WTF do I know, right?

Carry on...

I'm not a professional film editor but I've been watching movies for the past 35 years and I can tell if the pacing is off, if a certain scene goes on a couple beats too long, if a different camera angle would have made the point more clearly, etc.

Of course I'm the type of person that studies everything in detail, the minutia. I find understanding and studying all the technical details that make a music or film production successful (or unsuccessful) to be fascinating, often I'll get just as much enjoyment out of those little details as watching/listening to the completed project.

Does that make me a professional filmmaker? No, but I would say I have an educated opinion on the subject after decades of studying about the processes involved.