I don't believe this for a minute. Iommi was only in Tull for, at most, two weeks at the beginning of December 1968. (Mick Abrahams' last gig was November 30, and Tull cancelled their next gig on December 14 because Iommi had split.) Martin Barre officially joined on Christmas Eve and played his first Tull gig on December 30. According to the Ministry of Information site, "A New Day Yesterday" was the first track recorded for Stand Up, on April 17, 1969.Originally Posted by JeffCarney
Here's an interesting interview where Iommi discusses his time with Tull (starting at 9:10 of the first video and continuing into the second video). Note that he mentions that he came up with the riff for "Nothing Is Easy":
Interviewer of reprobate ne'er-do-well musicians of the long-haired rock n' roll persuasion at: www.velvetthunder.co.uk and former scribe at Classic Rock Society. Only vaguely aware of anything other than music.
*** Join me in the Garden of Delights for 4 hours of tune-spinning... every Saturday at 5pm EST on Deep Nuggets radio! www.deepnuggets.com ***
Well, that settles it then!
I think, Sean, that you might well be the only person I've ever come across who professes a love for the first two Sabbath albums but drops interest after that. With the global music community as exists these days via the internet, that is certainly quite the standout.
A truly "unique" viewpoint.
Particularly given your "reasoning." Namely, that they went with "shorter" tracks. What with 8 minute epics like "The Writ" or "Wheels Of Confusion" or the 10 minute "Megalomania," it's just a little suspicious, this "observation" of yours.
Not that I equate length with "quality" anyway, but I can't help but wonder if you were so busy reviewing ten million albums that you weren't paying much attention the last time you spun an album like, say ... Vol.4.
Probably true although I've never really understood it. Why should the topic of religion be "off limits" in musical theatre? I hope nobody with that attitude has The Crazy World Of Arthur Brown in his collection.
But in fairness, that "gimmick" also helped create a mystique around the band that surely helped sell tons of albums. To me it is no more or less valid than any other type of imagery or artistic vision that a musical artist might choose to employ. I do think there's a tiny minority of folks who are just plain "too cool for school" when it comes to this stuff, but you can apply this thinking to anything. To some, Henry Cow's political period might induce a gasp of "give me a break" thinking. To others, Cecil Taylor is "pretentious." I have no such perception in either case because I believe the artists were honest. Sabbath also pass this test with flying colors.
Well I will admit that I haven't really looked at the track lengths in quite a while on the latter Ozzy albums (neither have I heard them either; I've moved on since), but from memory, there are a few albums where no tracks are above 7-minutes (which is still rather long compared to the 3-mins radio-friendly tracks of other groups). NSD, TE, SBS, MoR and (except for one track) Vol4 are in that category. OK, I'll admit I forgot about Sabotage's two longer tracks, but three tracks over five albums is a bit of a change over the four or five (from memory) over their first two does make a difference
I wouldn't equate length to quality or progressiveness, but longer tracks do leave more room to instrumental interplay (though Iommi's lengthy guita on steroids solo in the debut is not my fave moment in the album) and that's one of the things that I look for in music.
BTW, I don't know why you'd imagine that I reviewed Vol4 or later Ozzy albums... I'm the one who wrote the bio for Sab fpor PA (it was a request from M@X and the Admins) and I reviewed their first hree albums and the Dio ones...but not Vol4, SBS, Sabotage , etc...)
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.
"
I may have clogged-up ears but I didn't hear no such thing in that interview, he does grumble something unintelligeable that sounds like: "he and I or Ian, but not "I" to me about the riff for Nothing Is Easy (nothing for A New Day Yesterday), but he doesn't shout "I came up with it"
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.
I've seen that Iommi/Wakeman interview before. I could watch interviews like that for hours. They're fascinating. The part that kind of surprised me was were Tony said he sat with Ian during a rehearsal or something and the other guys told Tony that Ian usually sits by himself, away from the other guys. Ian was already showing how he had control of that band way back then. In retrospect I guess it sounds like Ian probably wasn't the nicest, sweetest guy to work with in a band, but waht Tony got from that experience was how professional and focused Ian/Jethro Tull were. The whole story of Tony Iommi in Jethro Tull is really interesting. It's one of the great "what if"s of Rock & Roll. I have the DVD of the Stones R&R Circus. It's a really fun DVD to watch. There's an audio only interview with Ian on the DVD and he talks about Tony a little bit. Even though Tull are just miming the performance (except Ian of course, he sings live) Tony must've really been nervous because he doesn't look up once. He barely looks like himself in that film.
No he doesn't shout it, but he says it. "We were doing 'Nothing Is Easy' at that time and I came up with that.. bit of riff." (approx. 1:20 of the second video) Maybe it's the Birmingham accent?
Agreed. In fact there is another one with Ian Anderson which is excellent, Ian really makes Rick laugh several times throughout. That little 'Face To Face' show of Rick's was very, very good. I wish they'd put them out on DVD or something because they are sometimes on YT and other times removed. There was another great episode with Jon Lord (R.I.P.) and one with Rob Halford and Glen Tipton from Judas Priest.
Interviewer of reprobate ne'er-do-well musicians of the long-haired rock n' roll persuasion at: www.velvetthunder.co.uk and former scribe at Classic Rock Society. Only vaguely aware of anything other than music.
*** Join me in the Garden of Delights for 4 hours of tune-spinning... every Saturday at 5pm EST on Deep Nuggets radio! www.deepnuggets.com ***
Just watched both parts and yeah.. he does actually say it rather clearly that "I came up with that riff"..
I said nothing about you "reviewing" Vol. 4, I was sarcastically making a point that the last time you heard it, you might not have been paying attention, because your observations about Sabbath post-Paranoid are so strange, IMO.Well I will admit that I haven't really looked at the track lengths in quite a while on the latter Ozzy albums (neither have I heard them either; I've moved on since
I wouldn't equate length to quality or progressiveness, but longer tracks do leave more room to instrumental interplay (though Iommi's lengthy guita on steroids solo in the debut is not my fave moment in the album) and that's one of the things that I look for in music.
BTW, I don't know why you'd imagine that I reviewed Vol4 or later Ozzy albums... I'm the one who wrote the bio for Sab fpor PA (it was a request from M@X and the Admins) and I reviewed their first hree albums and the Dio ones...but not Vol4, SBS, Sabotage , etc...)
TBH, I rarely read your reviews.
The term "Heavy Metal" didn't come into use until 1978 or 1980. They (Sabbath) invented a genre but didn't know it. I think Judas Priest really embraced the term. They really pushed the image forward. Honestly, to me an album like "Mob Rules" blows away anything by Judas Priest. I have a few Priest albums but Sabbath blows them away.Ron: Hi Vic,
The only thing is that they never really considered themselves heavy metal,
What Priest albums do you have?
The term was actually first used by Mars Bonfire in "Born to be Wild," circa 1967-8.
But, that has nothing to do with my comment. I never stated that they addressed the term while they were together. Ozzy has gone on record after they split stating that they didn't consider themselves heavy metal.
I've certainly never thought of them as 'heavy metal'. I'm not sure how many PE members are also from 'my time' - I'm in the middle I think, a lot of people here are in their 50s and 60s, and there are younger twentysomethings here too... but I'm 40, so I was an impressionable pre-teen when bands like Priest and Maiden were huge. So to me there is a big difference, as I was taught (via magazines, music videos, etc) that heavy metal meant leather wristbands and overt sexuality and twinned guitar solos and high-pitched screams, or any combination thereof. In 1982, a band like Black Sabbath to me was classic rock, closer in spirit to Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple. Harder than those others, with dark imagery, yes, but metal? Nahh. The first time I ever heard Kill 'Em All, that was metal.
Interviewer of reprobate ne'er-do-well musicians of the long-haired rock n' roll persuasion at: www.velvetthunder.co.uk and former scribe at Classic Rock Society. Only vaguely aware of anything other than music.
*** Join me in the Garden of Delights for 4 hours of tune-spinning... every Saturday at 5pm EST on Deep Nuggets radio! www.deepnuggets.com ***
Metal= music that makes you shit your pants, and your parents scared.I've certainly never thought of them as 'heavy metal'. I'm not sure how many PE members are also from 'my time' - I'm in the middle I think, a lot of people here are in their 50s and 60s, and there are younger twentysomethings here too... but I'm 40, so I was an impressionable pre-teen when bands like Priest and Maiden were huge. So to me there is a big difference, as I was taught (via magazines, music videos, etc) that heavy metal meant leather wristbands and overt sexuality and twinned guitar solos and high-pitched screams, or any combination thereof. In 1982, a band like Black Sabbath to me was classic rock, closer in spirit to Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple. Harder than those others, with dark imagery, yes, but metal? Nahh. The first time I ever heard Kill 'Em All, that was metal.
"Heavy Metal" as regards Sabbath was a term that came into use long before 1978.
I remember an interview with Tony(from Heavy: The Story Of Metal, perhaps) where he said that the first time he heard it was when a journalist interviewed him in the early or mid '70s, and the journalist said that Sabbath was heavy metal.
Yeah, up yours too, buddy!!
Bisous04.gif
In the late 70's, many considered Zep, Purple and Sabbath as HM or at least as HM godfathers... something that today sounds musically inaccurate, but back then, it did seem absurd...
But yeah, I'd say Priest is most likely the real first HM band (solmething shared partly with Motorhead)... Though many included BOC as HM, I never really thought of them as metal
mmmhhh!!!... actually, one Priest album does top most Sabbath albums (Paranoid excepted)... Sad Wings Of Destiny
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.
It didn't matter what they thought they were back then. Of course they were hard/rock. Hard/rock and heavy metal were the same back then. It only became a separate "genre" in the 80s during the NWOBHM and the whole Thrash scene. That's when you started seeing the distinction between "hard rock" and "heavy metal." I remember when Led Zeppelin were also referred to as heavy metal back in the 70s and even 80s. They (Zep) were part of the scene that gave birth to metal. Today it's almost laughable that Zep were part of that scene. Sabbath, on the other hand were the most influencial heavy band. A couple weeks ago someone (Jeff?) posted an article about Sabbath spawning every sub-genre of Heavy Metal (doom, stoner, thrash, sludge, etc.). That's my point. It didn't matter what they (Sabbath) called their music. They were hard/rock, of course, but they pretty much invented a darker, heavier style of hard/rock which became heavy metal.Ozzy has gone on record after they split stating that they didn't consider themselves heavy metal.
Yes I'm aware of that. I don't remember when I first heard that term as regards to hard/rock, but it was in the 1970s. I remember that it wasn't a popular term yet but it was around. Any history that's ever been written about this music (Heavy Metal) as a genre always includes Black Sabbath. I go back even further. The roots of what became known as Heavy Metal go back to Jimi Hendrix and Cream. Today they wouldn't be included in a history book about metal, but Sabbath certainly would be."Heavy Metal" as regards Sabbath was a term that came into use long before 1978.
By the way guys (Jeff, Ron, Jif, whoever), we're not arguing here. I think we see the history of this band, this genre differently. I've mentioned several times that by the mid 70s I'd gotten completely out of the hard/rock scene and went off into some other world. I do remember that Sabbath, Purple, and Zeppelin were this "trinity" of heavy rock. By about 1974-75 that's when there was a second wave. Now we have Judas Priest who really didn't make a buzz in the US until probably 1980 or so. Enter a group called KISS. No one today considers them metal (to me they've always been a joke), but they're part of the history anyway. Rush was another heavy band back then too. I have no problem with Rush being called heavy metal. To me they're more hard/rock/metal than prog.
I think Priest were the first band to openly embrace the term and proudly wear it as a genre. The reason why I picked the year 1978 because that's when Judas Priest released Hell Bent For Leather, and that's when Holford really started using the leather, spikes look. By British Steel it was a full blown genre,But yeah, I'd say Priest is most likely the real first HM band (solmething shared partly with Motorhead)... Though many included BOC as HM, I never really thought of them as metal
Guys, I'm no historian. I haven't read books about all this stuff. Most of the rock history I read is online or in magazines. But I also remember the late 60s and 70s growing up in San Francisco. All the music that came out of that city in the 60s was also influential on what became heavy metal.
Agreed.
Using this logic, Chuck Berry wasn't "rock and roll" because of Bob Seger.I've certainly never thought of them as 'heavy metal'. I'm not sure how many PE members are also from 'my time' - I'm in the middle I think, a lot of people here are in their 50s and 60s, and there are younger twentysomethings here too... but I'm 40, so I was an impressionable pre-teen when bands like Priest and Maiden were huge. So to me there is a big difference, as I was taught (via magazines, music videos, etc) that heavy metal meant leather wristbands and overt sexuality and twinned guitar solos and high-pitched screams, or any combination thereof. In 1982, a band like Black Sabbath to me was classic rock, closer in spirit to Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple. Harder than those others, with dark imagery, yes, but metal? Nahh. The first time I ever heard Kill 'Em All, that was metal.
Musical innovations are often expanded and "evolve" over time. It doesn't change the fact that in 1970, when the first Black Sabbath album came out, there was definitely a sound that was well outside other "hard rock" bands. And by Paranoid later that year and certainly by the time of Master Of Reality in 1971, the fundamental components that define "heavy metal" were right there.
Sabbath didn't like the term because they didn't want to be put into somebody else's little box, but it was being used about them fairly regularly by the mid 70s and that was probably because people were trying to come up with a way of describing the sound which they heard.
You've overlooked that I was simply explaining why "I've never thought of them as heavy metal...". I didn't say they weren't, as though that could be somehow fact-based. 'Heavy metal' to me is a narrower description based on the time I grew up, and the images and sounds I was exposed to at an impressionable age.
Interviewer of reprobate ne'er-do-well musicians of the long-haired rock n' roll persuasion at: www.velvetthunder.co.uk and former scribe at Classic Rock Society. Only vaguely aware of anything other than music.
*** Join me in the Garden of Delights for 4 hours of tune-spinning... every Saturday at 5pm EST on Deep Nuggets radio! www.deepnuggets.com ***
I share this POV too, though I wouldn't say the band "regressed." They just don't grab me like the first two do. Them being a metal band doesn't interest me as much as them becoming a metal band. I just like the heavy blues/psych thing more.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks