Ozzy Sues Iommi Over Name Black Sabbath

So which one is more jealous of Heaven and Hell? Ozzy or Sharon?

From a financial standpoint, Ozzy has nothing to be jealous about. His last album "Black Rain" was his highest charting record to date and he's been raking in the money on Ozzfest for years...not to mention all of his stupid TV shenanigans.

From a musical standpoint is another story however. Nothing Ozzy has recorded in the past 15 years can hold a candle to either Iommi's work with Glenn Huges (Fused) or what Heaven & Hell is currently doing. H&H are still recording uncompromising material...while Ozzy has been busy doing sub-par cover tunes and other half-hearted attempts at commercial radio hits (of course that's probably Sharon's doing).

Ozzy is so out of it by this point that he's basically a marionette that Sharon dangles around from one embarrasing situation to another. She may have "saved his life"...but she stole his soul.

detuned wrote:

She may have "saved his life"...but she stole his soul.

That's so true, Ozzy sure has been turning into more and more of a soulless robot over the years since Sharon first got her claws on him.

Svengo wrote:

detuned wrote:

She may have "saved his life"...but she stole his soul.

That's so true, Ozzy sure has been turning into more and more of a soulless robot over the years since Sharon first got her claws on him.

He used to be the Madman now he's just sad.

Ozzy isn't the only rocker that ended up being pathetic... Gene Simmons turned into a big douche.

Troublezone wrote:

Ozzy isn't the only rocker that ended up being pathetic... Gene Simmons turned into a big douche.

This is true.

Troublezone wrote:

Ozzy isn't the only rocker that ended up being pathetic... Gene Simmons turned into a big douche.

Correction, Gene Simmons has always been a douche bag.

Quote :

What the hell is Ozzy suing over anyway? If Iommi owned the rights as the suit claims then why is the new Sabbath album attributed to Heaven and Hell?

If they went out in the Dio/Iommi/Ward/Appice incarnation as "Black Sabbath", they'd have to play "War Pigs", "Paranoid", "Iron Man" etc...they didn't want to do that...they wanted to focus on the Dio era and not confuse the fans who, coming to see "Black Sabbath", would expect Ozzy era songs

Troublezone wrote:

Ozzy isn't the only rocker that ended up being pathetic... Gene Simmons turned into a big douche.

True, but he has a sense of humor about it. And he's like the symbol of capitalism.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Quote :

What the hell is Ozzy suing over anyway? If Iommi owned the rights as the suit claims then why is the new Sabbath album attributed to Heaven and Hell?

If they went out in the Dio/Iommi/Ward/Appice incarnation as "Black Sabbath", they'd have to play "War Pigs", "Paranoid", "Iron Man" etc...they didn't want to do that...they wanted to focus on the Dio era and not confuse the fans who, coming to see "Black Sabbath", would expect Ozzy era songs

I don't buy that excuse for a minute, confuse the fans? We know what this line-up is, it would only confuse the morons! There would be no need to play the Ozzy era Sabbath anyway, don't recall Dio performing any of the Martin era material in 92.

Right, but your casual fan would show up to the gig and expect Ozzy and the 'hits' of Black Sabbath. Not Dio and his era of material. The Martin material is not as synonymous with the Black Sabbath name as say 'Paranoid' or 'War Pigs'.

And just to drop in my two cents, this seems like an absolutely ridiculous ploy by the Sharon Osbourne camp to remind everyone that, in her eyes at least, Ozzy = Sabbath. Which is just not true and smacks of jealous embitterment.

In the article I read, Ozzy contradicts himself by stating that he doesn't have the right to speak for Geezer and Bill, but he believes that morally and ethically, the trademark should be owned by the four of them equally. If that is truly the way he feels, why is he suing for 50 percent interest in the "Black Sabbath" trademark?

BTW, do I owe somebody a quarter for typing the words Black Sabbath?

manny wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

Ozzy isn't the only rocker that ended up being pathetic... Gene Simmons turned into a big douche.

Correction, Gene Simmons has always been a douche bag.

...and still I can't wait for the new KISS album. I'm such a sucker.

JBall_Z wrote:

manny wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

Ozzy isn't the only rocker that ended up being pathetic... Gene Simmons turned into a big douche.

Correction, Gene Simmons has always been a douche bag.

...and still I can't wait for the new KISS album. I'm such a sucker.

same here

candlemass wrote:

I don't buy that excuse for a minute, confuse the fans? We know what this line-up is, it would only confuse the morons! There would be no need to play the Ozzy era Sabbath anyway, don't recall Dio performing any of the Martin era material in 92.

Iommi has stated in a quite a few interviews that after touring with Ozzy for 10 years and having to play the same small setlist of tunes (that Ozzy could still sing) he was sick of it. He hadn't been able to play any of the Dio era material for ages, hence the name change. I also have a feeling that Dio wouldn't want to sing any of the Ozzy material anymore...I doubt he ever did in the first place.

Smindas wrote:

And just to drop in my two cents, this seems like an absolutely ridiculous ploy by the Sharon Osbourne camp to remind everyone that, in her eyes at least, Ozzy = Sabbath. Which is just not true and smacks of jealous embitterment.

amen bro, Iommi = Sabbath

candlemass wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Quote :

What the hell is Ozzy suing over anyway? If Iommi owned the rights as the suit claims then why is the new Sabbath album attributed to Heaven and Hell?

If they went out in the Dio/Iommi/Ward/Appice incarnation as "Black Sabbath", they'd have to play "War Pigs", "Paranoid", "Iron Man" etc...they didn't want to do that...they wanted to focus on the Dio era and not confuse the fans who, coming to see "Black Sabbath", would expect Ozzy era songs

I don't buy that excuse for a minute, confuse the fans? We know what this line-up is, it would only confuse the morons! There would be no need to play the Ozzy era Sabbath anyway, don't recall Dio performing any of the Martin era material in 92.

Well there were obviously no legal restrictions keeping them from using Black Sabbath as a name...so what's your theory? I heard Tony say what I stated on more than on occasion.

I think Tony was just trying to appease Sharon and Ozzy, obviously that hasn't worked.

candlemass wrote:

I think Tony was just trying to appease Sharon and Ozzy, obviously that hasn't worked.

Possibly...but I can easily see the logic in the other.

candlemass wrote:

I think Tony was just trying to appease Sharon and Ozzy, obviously that hasn't worked.

I've always felt that way about it too. Iommi is obviously seems like a class act and despite what he may say in the press, I always had the feeling the name change was just to avoid any hassle with Sharon. And yea, that obviously ain't working.

I get that Heaven & Hell wants to focus on the Dio-years, but to say it would "confuse the fans" smells like to me. The real fans know the difference.

I may have used the word "confuse" incorrectly...they did not want fans to be disappointed coming to see "Black Sabbath" and having the entire original era excluded.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

I may have used the word "confuse" incorrectly...they did not want fans to be disappointed coming to see "Black Sabbath" and having the entire original era excluded.

Nah, I think you're right in saying that. I'm pretty sure I've read press releases where either Tony or Ronnie did use the phrase "confuse the fans", but again, I think that was just their polite way of saying "If we tour as Black Sabbath, Sharon will be up our a$$".

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

I may have used the word "confuse" incorrectly...they did not want fans to be disappointed coming to see "Black Sabbath" and having the entire original era excluded.

Nah, I think you're right in saying that. I'm pretty sure I've read press releases where either Tony or Ronnie did use the phrase "confuse the fans", but again, I think that was just their polite way of saying "If we tour as Black Sabbath, Sharon will be up our a$$".

I'm sure that had a little to do with it as well.

But, I still contend that the fan thing was part of it...it'd be the same type people who went to see Journey w/ Augeri and thought he WAS Perry....LOL! They'd be there screaming (drunk) "WHOOO!!! PARANOID!!!!!!" and be pissed off/disappointed at not hearing it ("I thought this was Black Sabbath!! They're ignoring Ozzy!! Ozzy IS Black Sabbath!!!" blah-blah-blah...

It made more sense to keep the Black Sabbath name on Dehumanizer as the reunion had not happened yet. But after reuniting & touring for close to ten years w/ Ozzy & Bill, it does seem a little strange to go back to calling it "Black Sabbath" again...even though Tony had every legal right to do so.

The name Black Sabbath is of course a "valuable commodity", but it also comes with tons of baggage attached.

With the success of Heaven & Hell I think Iommi has proof that they can continue without using the name and do just fine.

Quote :

it'd be the same type people who went to see Journey w/ Augeri and thought he WAS Perry....LOL! They'd be there screaming (drunk) "WHOOO!!! PARANOID!!!!!!" and be pissed off/disappointed at not hearing it ("I thought this was Black Sabbath!! They're ignoring Ozzy!! Ozzy IS Black Sabbath!!!"

Those nitwits get what they deserve.