Page 3 of 25 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 624

Thread: Just Bought A Black Sabbath album

  1. #51
    Member Guitarplyrjvb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Northeast Pennsylvania USA
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Digital_Man View Post
    [^ A side of Sabbath I don't need. ]


    Just curious how you feel about Led Zeppelin's eclectic side which would include their more folkier pieces.
    I love it! To me, they're much more convincing and capable than Sabbath at the light side of things. Zep even used to do an acoustic set where they all sat on stools with acoustic guitars! Can you imagine that at a Sabbath concert?

    The best part of "Changes" is when it fades out and your anticipating the bone-crushing riffs of the mighty Supernaut after that weird ditty "FX".

    To me, the record where the Sabs did a good job at mixing-in a little diversity was Sabbath Bloody Sabbath. They added an acoustic element and more prominent keyboards without losing their identity. I find this record to be their crowning achievement. If you removed the silly "Who Are You" and the banal, aptly titled "Fluff", the album would be flawless!

    Apologies to those who feel that Sabbath can do no wrong!
    Last edited by Guitarplyrjvb; 04-10-2013 at 11:59 AM.

  2. #52
    Well, I like Clam Caravan- whoops, Planet Caravan and strongly dislike Changes so I'm in the middle.

  3. #53
    Member Guitarplyrjvb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Northeast Pennsylvania USA
    Posts
    1,114
    Let me ask you: if you were putting together a Sabbath compilation from the albums up to Technical Ecstasy, would you include: Changes, Who are You, Planet Caravan, Solitude......? I wouldn't! There's too much Symptom of the Universe, Killing Yourself to Live, Sweet Leaf, Hand of Doom, The Wizard, etc...

    Anyhow, I guess the most amazing thing on this thread is that someone who's into metal hasn't owned any Sabbath albums up 'til now. That's almost like not owning any Beatles albums!

  4. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by GuitarGeek View Post
    If this is your only Sabbath album, then you might now wish to get Sabbath Bloody Sabbath and Sabotage, the two that followed it. Then get Heaven And Hell and Mob Rules. Then get all the other albums up to and including Born Again.
    This. Though i'd put the selftitled debut up there on the "get at once list".

    Oh and avoid Technical Ecstasy and Never Day Die. I like a lot of the Tony Martin era stuff too.
    And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love you make.

  5. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarplyrjvb View Post
    I love it! To me, they're much more convincing and capable than Sabbath at the light side of things. Zep even used to do an acoustic set where they all sat on stools with acoustic guitars! Can you imagine that at a Sabbath concert?

    The best part of "Changes" is when it fades out and your anticipating the bone-crushing riffs of the mighty Supernaut after that weird ditty "FX".

    To me, the record where the Sabs did a good job at mixing-in a little diversity was Sabbath Bloody Sabbath. They added an acoustic element and more prominent keyboards without losing their identity. I find this record to be their crowning achievement. If you removed the silly "Who Are You" and the banal, aptly titled "Fluff", the album would be flawless!
    Funny but in some ways it's the exact opposite for me. I don't really like comparing two bands I adore for different reasons, but with Sabbath I find their "soft" stuff to always be innovative. Somehow, they just had a certain touch with anything they did and it always sounds uniquely Sabbath, as opposed to: "We just went through a phase of listening to CSN, Joni Mitchell and West Coast acoustic music so we're going to start having more of an acoustic side."

    At their best acoustically (IE: "Rain Song"), Zeppelin were better at this while Sabbath were better at flat out pummeling you with intense power. But overall, I think stuff like "Planet Caravan" and "Solitude" brings a certain originality to the table that sets Sabbath apart. I mean ... what are those tunes? Cocktail space jazz?

    Even "Changes" (which in recent years seems to divide) is utterly unique in its sound.

    I just think that Sabbath do what they do for the people that get their brand and don't worry about people who don't. "Changes" is a simple love song. And it's demonstrating that when they do a simple love song, it sounds like nobody else's simple love song. That has merit. I also think Ozzy's vocal on it is not to be believed, but then I regard Ozzy as one of the most unique voices of an entire generation, so I've "bought in," as it were.
    Last edited by JeffCarney; 04-10-2013 at 12:48 PM.

  6. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffCarney View Post
    I also think Ozzy's vocal on it is not to be believed, but then I regard Ozzy as one of the most unique voices of an entire generation, so I've "bought in," as it were.
    +1

    Also, I happen to LOVE "Solitude." The fact that it segues into "Into the Void" only adds more to its subtle beauty.

  7. #57
    Member Guitarplyrjvb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Northeast Pennsylvania USA
    Posts
    1,114
    The best part, to me again, is that most of the "soft" songs segue into something bone crushing. I find myself not being able to wait for a song like "Planet Caravan" to be over and for "Iron Man" to start.

    I agree that comparisons between bands that we all seem to love are kind of a waste, but it is a bit fun! Back in the day, Sabbath used to get compared a lot to Zep. They were often categorized as "The Poor Man's Led Zeppelin"... However, if I were making a Zep compilation, I'd inlcude great acoustic songs like "The Battle of Evermore", "Going to California", "Tangerine", and "Gallows Pole". I wouldn't include any of Sabbath's attempts at lighter fare. Sabbath is a blunt instrument that needs to be wielded accordingly!

  8. #58
    Member Cuz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Stamford, CT
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Olesen View Post
    .

    Oh and avoid Technical Ecstasy and Never Day Die. I like a lot of the Tony Martin era stuff too.
    Really? While I agree that Tech Ecst and Never Say Die may be a step down (although I love them) from their early stuff, those albums are (IMHO) light years better than anything from the Tony Martin era.

  9. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Cuz View Post
    Really? While I agree that Tech Ecst and Never Say Die may be a step down (although I love them) from their early stuff, those albums are (IMHO) light years better than anything from the Tony Martin era.
    Same goes for me...

  10. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Cuz View Post
    Really? While I agree that Tech Ecst and Never Say Die may be a step down (although I love them) from their early stuff, those albums are (IMHO) light years better than anything from the Tony Martin era.
    Yes really. But apart from the debut album my introduction to BS was Live Evil so i don't have the same relationship to the Ozzy era BS. And much of the Tony Martin era stuff is more similar to the Dio era than the Ozzy era. And to me Heaven And Hell is the best album they ever did.
    And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love you make.

  11. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarplyrjvb View Post
    The best part, to me again, is that most of the "soft" songs segue into something bone crushing. I find myself not being able to wait for a song like "Planet Caravan" to be over and for "Iron Man" to start.

    I agree that comparisons between bands that we all seem to love are kind of a waste, but it is a bit fun! Back in the day, Sabbath used to get compared a lot to Zep. They were often categorized as "The Poor Man's Led Zeppelin"...
    Well, I've been around a while and that's the first I've ever heard of this one. You sure you aren't confusing a few buddies on your culdesac with "often categorized?"

    Anyway ... a writer who would state this should be fired from his job immediately, IMO. But in all my years I don't recall such nonsense ever being commonplace. Both bands were often despised by critics, that's for sure. But both also got quite a bit of praise; especially as the years passed. Sabbath really started to see positive reviews after Sabbath Bloody Sabbath. I mean, only a complete imbecile could call himself a "critic" and deny the musical and lyrical significance of that album, IMO.

    Now Uriah Heep being a "Poor Man's Deep Purple" I've heard ...

  12. #62
    Member Guitarplyrjvb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Northeast Pennsylvania USA
    Posts
    1,114
    ^ I'm referring to the very early 70's in magazines like Circus, Creem, and Rolling Stone. Sabbath were vilified!

    Count me in with those who recommend avoiding "Born Again". Aside from the curiosity of having Gillan singing with them, it doesn't rank up with the classic stuff. I even like Technical Ecstasy better. I saw 'em during the Born Again tour and it was pretty surreal and a little bit funny. I mean this was the debut of the infamous Stonehenge stage set-up later copped by Spinal Tap.
    Last edited by Guitarplyrjvb; 04-10-2013 at 02:16 PM.

  13. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarplyrjvb View Post
    I'm referring to the very early 70's in magazines like Circus, Creem, and Rolling Stone. Sabbath were vilified!
    Eh ... that stuff gets exaggerated.

    Lester Bangs wrote a very positive two part piece on them in 1972. It used to be easy to find but Creem seem to have taken their stuff down. Here is part one ...

    http://www.ideologic.org/news/view/c...sabbath_72_pt1

    But originally, I guess he thought they were derivative of Cream. He seemed to go back and forth over the years but his 1972 piece called "How Black Was My Sabbath" was largely positive and compared their lyrics to Dylan. It also cites the amazing tempo shifts and stop on a dime transitions in "Hand Of Doom" and the lyrics as completely organic, and far more convincing than Neil Young's "The Damage Done." I guess the latter didn't do anything for him. I disagree and one thing I never like about many critics is how they have to put something else down in order to lift something else up, but anyway ...

    Rolling Stone had several very positive reviews of their albums. I just googled Gordon Fletcher's 1974 review of Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, which states:

    "In fact, this record transcends third-generation rock in that it possesses a degree of internal intricacy that belies popular conceptions of heavy-metal. The use of tempo changes and electronic keyboards to cast liquid emotions makes Sabbath, Bloody Sabbath an extraordinarily gripping affair."
    http://www.rollingstone.com/music/al...#ixzz2Q5Q3ctYE

    Circus? I don't know ... I seem to remember Sabbath getting tons of run in that mag but don't recall it often being "negative." I read a quite a few of the 70s back issues when I was a teen in the early 80s, but maybe I missed some of the really negative stuff.

    Anyway ... I know they had their share of horrible reviews. In the end, they were never "critic's darlings. " Nor were most of the other bands who have had long lasting impact. I just came across this Guardian article by Tom Ewing, which discusses just how wrong critics were about Sabbath and explores what they might be wrong about now. Kind of an interesting read:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010...bbath-mall-emo
    Last edited by JeffCarney; 04-10-2013 at 02:46 PM.

  14. #64
    Member Guitarplyrjvb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Northeast Pennsylvania USA
    Posts
    1,114
    Interesting read. What a time that was when music like early Sabbath, Zep and Yes was coming out! I remember getting Paranoid and playing it on the stereo console (it was actually a piece of furniture in those days!) in my parent's living room while my mom was making dinner. I can't imagine what she was thinking!

  15. #65
    Member Vic2012's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    La Florida
    Posts
    7,554
    Anyhow, I guess the most amazing thing on this thread is that someone who's into metal hasn't owned any Sabbath albums up 'til now.
    Yeah, well again, better late than never. That's the beauty of recorded music, it's there to be discovered decades later. I've only been into heavy metal for 6-7 years. I always loved Zeppelin, Cream, Mountain, and some classic, hard/rock from the 70s, but only within the last 10 years have I gotten into Van Halen, AC/DC, Metallica, etc. It's all good. I've been meaning to get into Sabbath for a few years but there's so much hard/rock and heavy metal I like a lot more. Not putting down Sabbath, I just like a lot of other bands more. So, better late than never.

  16. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffCarney View Post
    Eh ... that stuff gets exaggerated.

    Lester Bangs wrote a very positive two part piece on them in 1972. It used to be easy to find but Creem seem to have taken their stuff down. Here is part one ...

    http://www.ideologic.org/news/view/c...sabbath_72_pt1

    But originally, I guess he thought they were derivative of Cream. He seemed to go back and forth over the years but his 1972 piece called "How Black Was My Sabbath" was largely positive and compared their lyrics to Dylan. It also cites the amazing tempo shifts and stop on a dime transitions in "Hand Of Doom" and the lyrics as completely organic, and far more convincing than Neil Young's "The Damage Done." I guess the latter didn't do anything for him. I disagree and one thing I never like about many critics is how they have to put something else down in order to lift something else up, but anyway ...

    Rolling Stone had several very positive reviews of their albums. I just googled Gordon Fletcher's 1974 review of Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, which states:

    "In fact, this record transcends third-generation rock in that it possesses a degree of internal intricacy that belies popular conceptions of heavy-metal. The use of tempo changes and electronic keyboards to cast liquid emotions makes Sabbath, Bloody Sabbath an extraordinarily gripping affair."
    http://www.rollingstone.com/music/al...#ixzz2Q5Q3ctYE

    Circus? I don't know ... I seem to remember Sabbath getting tons of run in that mag but don't recall it often being "negative." I read a quite a few of the 70s back issues when I was a teen in the early 80s, but maybe I missed some of the really negative stuff.

    Anyway ... I know they had their share of horrible reviews. In the end, they were never "critic's darlings. " Nor were most of the other bands who have had long lasting impact. I just came across this Guardian article by Tom Ewing, which discusses just how wrong critics were about Sabbath and explores what they might be wrong about now. Kind of an interesting read:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010...bbath-mall-emo
    It's funny that you compare Sabbath to Dylan, because Solitude borrows it's opening lines from a Dylan song.

  17. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by JIF View Post
    It's funny that you compare Sabbath to Dylan, because Solitude borrows it's opening lines from a Dylan song.
    I didn't compare them to Dylan. Lester Bangs did.

    But as regards your point, the opening line certainly could have been a spin on the opening line from "With God on Our Side."

  18. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffCarney View Post
    I didn't compare them to Dylan. Lester Bangs did.

    But as regards your point, the opening line certainly could have been a spin on the opening line from "With God on Our Side."
    One of my favorite Dylan songs.

  19. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffCarney View Post
    I didn't compare them to Dylan. Lester Bangs did.

    But as regards your point, the opening line certainly could have been a spin on the opening line from "With God on Our Side."
    Ooops, my bad.

  20. #70
    facetious maximus Yves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,621
    Quote Originally Posted by Vic2012 View Post
    Yeah, well again, better late than never. That's the beauty of recorded music, it's there to be discovered decades later. I've only been into heavy metal for 6-7 years. I always loved Zeppelin, Cream, Mountain, and some classic, hard/rock from the 70s, but only within the last 10 years have I gotten into Van Halen, AC/DC, Metallica, etc. It's all good. I've been meaning to get into Sabbath for a few years but there's so much hard/rock and heavy metal I like a lot more. Not putting down Sabbath, I just like a lot of other bands more. So, better late than never.
    Indeed... MUSIC is just one large ocean. We all wade in from different beaches. I used to think that there was only one path that lead to the discovery of each genre but soon realised that people approach music very differently. Not everybody feels compelled to discover a genre using a scientific approach of seeking out the seminal bands/recordings in a chronological fashion in order to dissect a genre.
    "Corn Flakes pissed in. You ranted. Mission accomplished. Thread closed."

    -Cozy 3:16-

  21. #71
    PE Member Since 4/9/2002 NeonKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    West Milford NJ
    Posts
    198
    Quote Originally Posted by Guitarplyrjvb View Post

    I agree that comparisons between bands that we all seem to love are kind of a waste, but it is a bit fun! Back in the day, Sabbath used to get compared a lot to Zep.
    Speaking of comparing bands, I heard Plant say "Deep Sabbath" recently. I think he was just ball busting FWIW.
    “Where words fail, music speaks.” - Hans Christian Anderson

  22. #72
    Member Cuz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Stamford, CT
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NeonKnight View Post
    I heard Plant say "Deep Sabbath" recently. I think he was just ball busting FWIW.
    I'm somewhat of a Zeppelin fanboy, but in this area Plant can be a real douchebag. Many years ago I HEARD an interview with him (I did not read it in print, I heard it) on a radio show, and he said something along the lines of "one of the problems with being in Zeppelin was being compared to bad, boring bands like Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, and Jethro Tull". I couldn't believe my ears, I thought I must have misheard it. But then I heard him say almost the same thing in another interview. What a weenie.

  23. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by NeonKnight View Post
    Speaking of comparing bands, I heard Plant say "Deep Sabbath" recently. I think he was just ball busting FWIW.
    Yeah. I would assume this was a fun poke at the interchangeable band members that went on for a while. Well, mainly Iommi drinking from the Purple water well.

    Speaking of the Sabs and Zep, I still think the "Black Zeppelin" tapes thing would be super cool if it ever surfaced. I guess Bill Ward is quite certain that no tape was rolled and since he remembers that details of the jam and how John Bonham kept jamming on "Supernaut" then I would think his recollection is probably accurate.

  24. #74
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Cuz View Post
    I'm somewhat of a Zeppelin fanboy, but in this area Plant can be a real douchebag. Many years ago I HEARD an interview with him (I did not read it in print, I heard it) on a radio show, and he said something along the lines of "one of the problems with being in Zeppelin was being compared to bad, boring bands like Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, and Jethro Tull". I couldn't believe my ears, I thought I must have misheard it. But then I heard him say almost the same thing in another interview. What a weenie.
    In an audio interview that was on the 25th anniversary edition of Aqualung, Ian Anderson said that he and Robert never got along great due to a comment Ian made about how his own lyrics would go well with Zep's music.

  25. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Cuz View Post
    I'm somewhat of a Zeppelin fanboy, but in this area Plant can be a real douchebag. Many years ago I HEARD an interview with him (I did not read it in print, I heard it) on a radio show, and he said something along the lines of "one of the problems with being in Zeppelin was being compared to bad, boring bands like Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, and Jethro Tull". I couldn't believe my ears, I thought I must have misheard it. But then I heard him say almost the same thing in another interview. What a weenie.
    I'm not defending Plant if he said this but sometimes there is a bit of history to these things.

    First of all, when you talk about what might be called "British Rock Royalty," these guys seem to be a bit competitive but I think they all respect each other on a deeper level.

    But I was recently listening to an interview with Plant and Page from 1972 in Australia. In it, the interviewer asks them about Deep Purple and they don't seem that impressed, but the guy also says that Ian Gillan said Zeppelin didn't really seem to have very good songs yet and maybe needed to develop that aspect of their thing a bit more. So who knows if that's exactly what he said, but you can bet that these type of "jabs" went on. I certainly recall something between Tull and Zep also but I'm too lazy to google it up now.

    And with Sabbath, when they hit the market, their management was putting out the word that they "make Led Zeppelin sound like a Kindergarten House Band." When Sabbath got word of this, they told them to knock that off immediately, but who knows, maybe little things like this happen and Plant feels justified in returning the favor once in a while? Sabbath and Zeppelin were pretty good friends, as anybody who knows the history of both bands realizes, so I don't think what Plant said was any big deal. I'm not "defending it" and I don't agree with him if he actually believed that for one second, but I'm just opening up some reasons that might be behind these things.

    Wasn't the last time Zeppelin was seen together in public at a Sabbath concert in London in May of 1980? I think Bonham had to be removed from backstage after the show because while very complimentary of Ronnie James Dio's singing, he was very much obnoxiously drunk and hung up on the "You sing great for midget!" banter.

    Sabbath and Zeppelin are two of my favorite bands so I know a few stories and I don't think anything like that is a big deal, but I can relate to what you say. It's also ironic because as much as I love Zeppelin, due to some of their really long jams they surely would have to take the cake for sometimes being "boring" when it comes to the bands he cited. At least live. But they could also be the most exciting band on a good night. But that's me trying to not be a "fanboy" and look at it objectively.
    Last edited by JeffCarney; 04-11-2013 at 02:31 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •