What If...

Black Sabbath released "Dehumanizer" in 1983 instead of "Born Again"?

It would suck because I love Born Again. I love both albums, but there would be no Born Again if that happened, so piss off with that line of alternate universe bs thinking!

Wrecked Neck wrote:

It would suck because I love Born Again. I love both albums, but there would be no Born Again if that happened, so piss off with that line of alternate universe bs thinking!

I saw this tour with the oversized Stonehenge stage. It was awesome by the way. Maybe in the alternate universe, "Born Again" gets a 84 release?

Just to F with you... What if Sabbath did two albums with Gillian? :

James B. wrote:

Just to F with you... What if Sabbath did two albums with Gillian? :

Then we probably wouldn't have Perfect Strangers, so again piss off with that!

Weirdly enough, Born Again is an album i have never properly listened to.

Picked up the deluxe edition years ago and spinned a few tracks one time, on my way back home.

Then, i put it on the shelves and forgot about it.

Definitely need to revisit it.

Is Dio involved? Would this in any way interfere with Holy Diver? If it in any way interferes with the metal perfection of Holy Diver then I'm out.

scottmitchell74 wrote:

Is Dio involved? Would this in any way interfere with Holy Diver? If it in any way interferes with the metal perfection of Holy Diver then I'm out.

Another great point! Can someone ban James for making my head hurt???

Wrecked Neck wrote:

scottmitchell74 wrote:

Is Dio involved? Would this in any way interfere with Holy Diver? If it in any way interferes with the metal perfection of Holy Diver then I'm out.

Another great point! Can someone ban James for making my head hurt???

Born Again is one of my favorite Sabbath albums.

If they did release Dehumanizer in 1983, maybe everything would have just been pushed back a year or two (Holy Diver, Born Again etc.)

Maybe "Born Again" comes after an 1983 "Dehumanizer"?
Would "Perfect Strangers" in 1985 change the trajectory of the Mk. II reunion?
Could Ronnie do Sabbath and have "Holy Diver" just be a solo side project in 1983?

I would be fine with Born Again being pushed back a couple years, as long as it got a better mix and mastering.

Troublezone wrote:

as long as it got a better mix and mastering.

I never cared about that in 83 at all. Already had begun trading demo tapes by then. Put tape in the Pioneer Supertuner, tweek the 32 band EQ, and turn it up. That is what mattered.

Dehumanizer with Ian Gillan, yes!

But I'm not sure Born Again with Dio in '92 would work well at all.

James B. wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

as long as it got a better mix and mastering.

I never cared about that in 83 at all. Already had begun trading demo tapes by then. Put tape in the Pioneer Supertuner, tweek the 32 band EQ, and turn it up. That is what mattered.

This whole production thing came about because of the freakin iPod. Then they realised the masses would go out and buy up the same shit they already have if they "remastered" it. Remastered albums do sometimes sound better, but like you, I can put it on my actual STEREO SYSTEM, steel a few things here and there, and suddenly it's "remastered".

Wrecked Neck wrote:

James B. wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

as long as it got a better mix and mastering.

I never cared about that in 83 at all. Already had begun trading demo tapes by then. Put tape in the Pioneer Supertuner, tweek the 32 band EQ, and turn it up. That is what mattered.

This whole production thing came about because of the freakin iPod. Then they realised the masses would go out and buy up the same shit they already have if they "remastered" it. Remastered albums do sometimes sound better, but like you, I can put it on my actual STEREO SYSTEM, steel a few things here and there, and suddenly it's "remastered".

I have an iPod, but I never used it. That never applied to me! I also never had the old badass “home stereos” with a turntable that James speaks of. All I know is what it sounds like on a boombox and in my car. With the latter, the guitar tone and volume on Iommi’s solos are ear bleeding loud and not balanced against the other sound levels.

Iommi himself hates the original mix. I think I’ll agree with the actual musician/songwriter of the album.

Troublezone wrote:

Wrecked Neck wrote:

James B. wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

as long as it got a better mix and mastering.

I never cared about that in 83 at all. Already had begun trading demo tapes by then. Put tape in the Pioneer Supertuner, tweek the 32 band EQ, and turn it up. That is what mattered.

This whole production thing came about because of the freakin iPod. Then they realised the masses would go out and buy up the same shit they already have if they "remastered" it. Remastered albums do sometimes sound better, but like you, I can put it on my actual STEREO SYSTEM, steel a few things here and there, and suddenly it's "remastered".

I have an iPod, but I never used it. That never applied to me! I also never had the old badass “home stereos” with a turntable that James speaks of. All I know is what it sounds like on a boombox and in my car. With the latter, the guitar tone and volume on Iommi’s solos are ear bleeding loud and not balanced against the other sound levels.

Iommi himself hates the original mix. I think I’ll agree with the actual musician/songwriter of the album.

I'm speaking in general terms, nothing really to do with that particular album. Sure some albums could sound better, but the majority of them are only remastered to make the digital world happy. I use an iPod all the time, and the older cds I have on it are nowhere near as loud as the newer ones. They do that because the newer iPods have all been turned down so you don't damage your ears. I personally think that's bullshit, my ears, if I wanna go deaf then so be it. But anyways, that's when these remastered albums started really taking off. Then of course vinyl made a comeback, so once again, everything had to be remastered to make it sound clean like the originals.

And one more thing....go get yourself a real stereo ffs! Boom box? Ugh lol

Wrecked Neck wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

Wrecked Neck wrote:

James B. wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

as long as it got a better mix and mastering.

I never cared about that in 83 at all. Already had begun trading demo tapes by then. Put tape in the Pioneer Supertuner, tweek the 32 band EQ, and turn it up. That is what mattered.

This whole production thing came about because of the freakin iPod. Then they realised the masses would go out and buy up the same shit they already have if they "remastered" it. Remastered albums do sometimes sound better, but like you, I can put it on my actual STEREO SYSTEM, steel a few things here and there, and suddenly it's "remastered".

I have an iPod, but I never used it. That never applied to me! I also never had the old badass “home stereos” with a turntable that James speaks of. All I know is what it sounds like on a boombox and in my car. With the latter, the guitar tone and volume on Iommi’s solos are ear bleeding loud and not balanced against the other sound levels.

Iommi himself hates the original mix. I think I’ll agree with the actual musician/songwriter of the album.

I'm speaking in general terms, nothing really to do with that particular album. Sure some albums could sound better, but the majority of them are only remastered to make the digital world happy. I use an iPod all the time, and the older cds I have on it are nowhere near as loud as the newer ones. They do that because the newer iPods have all been turned down so you don't damage your ears. I personally think that's bullshit, my ears, if I wanna go deaf then so be it. But anyways, that's when these remastered albums started really taking off. Then of course vinyl made a comeback, so once again, everything had to be remastered to make it sound clean like the originals.

And one more thing....go get yourself a real stereo ffs! Boom box? Ugh lol

No space for a real stereo system. Believe me, I would if I could!

My reference to Pioneer Super Tuner and 32 band EQ in this thread is car audio.

As far as home goes... Tubes, big magnets, and space for air to move, you're golden!

James B. wrote:

My reference to Pioneer Super Tuner and 32 band EQ in this thread is car audio.

As far as home goes... Tubes, big magnets, and space for air to move, you're golden!

I've had some really good systems in a couple cars over the years, but never had an eq in any of them. This dude I had install one of my stereos, had this pickup truck with a king cab, and the entire back seat was some giant subwoofers, and this eq that had to be a hundred bands lol That thing was legit too loud, but sounded amazing.