Talk:Black Sabbath/Archive 3

Adam Wakeman
I just came to this page from Adam Wakeman's page, where it says he's the current keyboardist for the band.. yet the name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Does he just play as a session musician, or is he otherwise not considered a full-time member? The official page links to him as a member. (Either the wording on Wakeman's page should be modified or he should be added to this one, I think. Let me know if I'm off base. Irishnightwish (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Genre?
Shouldnt Hard Rock and Stoner Rock be on there? Theres a definate stoner vibe to most of there songs, and plenty of hard rock on there early albums.
 * No it shouldn't. They are a heavy metal band. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 18:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There definatly stoner rock. Anyone who's knows what stoner rock is can tell they are.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.225.242 (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Black Sabbath CREATED heavy metal and always played it. Thats all. 189.26.85.176 (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This is true, but they also pioneered the genre Doom Metal. User:Zifirl (Zifirl) 11:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

THEY CREATED HEAVY METAL!!!!! So they must be HEAVY METAL!!!!! But I could see a little stoner rock like in Sweat Leaf or Hand of Doom

Sabbath's first four albums definitely had a very strong doom vibe present within many of the songs, and they played a huge influence on later doom metal acts, so I think it's definitely worth noting that they were, in part, a doom metal band. There is also a huge amount of bluesy riffs and soloing on the first album (hell, The Wizard even has harmonica in it). Anyone who denies that both of these types of music played a large part in the Black Sabbath sound is biased or ignorant, and we shouldn't have either on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.63.113 (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think "blues-rock" might be warranted, but I vote NO on the "stoner metal" and "doom metal" genre notations. Even though they may have been in those genres too, "heavy metal" will suffice. Tim010987 (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think it's inappropriate to credit them with inventing genres (Stoner Rock, Doom Metal) that were invented decades after their supposedly "defining" work. During Sabbath's defining work (mid seventies), they were creating "heavy metal" from the "hard rock" that existed at the time. Metal gradually got re-defined (the song that NAMED the genre, Steppenwolf's "Born To Be Wild", is definitely NOT heavy metal these days by any reasonable definition, but presumably was in 1970). Back then, ALL rock was "stoner rock" but no one used the term, or distinguished it from other rock.

But Sabbath was no more playing stoner rock than Chicago blues artists were playing rock-n-roll in 1951. If you LISTEN to, say, Little Walter now, he's got guitar/bass/drums, distorted amplified harmonica, guitar distortion, rock tempos, rock lyrics - but in his universe, he was playing the blues. Likewise, Sabbath was playing heavy metal WHILE they were playing it, regardless of what other categories we extract later.24.17.180.126 (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sabbath wasn't a stoner rock band, although they influenced and set the sound for pretty much every stoner rock band... and by the way, I wanted to add "Hard rock" to the list, under heavy metal mainly because of their sound structure... I know how you feel about putting something up there that isn't "Heavy metal" but, I mean Led Zeppelin and AC/DC were metal and rock at the same time. Please discuss this with me because I like your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanner9461 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(Hand of) Doom, Revisited
I really think, if we want to only list one genre, Doom Metal is by far the most accurate and descriptive. I won't change anything, b/c I can see that consensus is against me, but let me make my case anyway. When we say that Black Sabbath are a heavy metal band, we are doing two things: 1) We are saying that our contemporary understanding of this term is consistent with the sound and stylistic elements of Sabbath. 2) We are noting that the term "heavy metal" was long applied to the band, going back close to their origins. Let me address point number 2 first. Sure, Sabbath were identified as metal for as long as this has been a popular term for a music genre. But back in the halcyon 70's, who were the other "Heavy Metal" bands meant to be, that made up the genre that Sabbath was said to belong to? At first, the list included Zeppelin, Purple, Mountain, Alice Cooper, and Uriah Heep. As the decade progressed, the following hard rock acts were affixed with the heavy metal label: Ted Nugent, AC/DC, Queen, Heart, Thin Lizzy, Kiss, Aerosmith, Blue Oyster Cult. For example, the title of the cover story of the October 1979 issue of the American rock mag Creem(http://www.creemmagazine.com/ArchivePages/1979_10.html) was "Is Heavy Metal Dead?", and it profiled each of the aforementioned bands in its attempts to resolve the titular question, along with even more dubious (by contemporary standards) bands like Boston and... REO Speedwagon! So what we are doing, those of us who reject, say, Ted Nugent as a progenitor of Heavy Metal, but still make the argument that Sabbath is Heavy Metal, in part, because that's what they have always been called, is we are taking the modern definition of Heavy Metal (whatever that may be) and grafting it onto the older usages. What 1970's writers meant when they called Sabbath a Heavy Metal band was "they are a hard rock band like Ted Nugent" if we were to apply contemporary meanings. We do this in the case of Sabbath, but not in the case of Nugent, because Sabbath are the rare early "Heavy Metal" band that sits comfortably with both definitions. So if we understand that what we are doing is giving Sabbath a label that conforms to our modern understanding, and that the genre (whether "heavy metal" as currently construed, or "doom metal") didn't exist for nearly a decade, or more, after they started, isn't Doom Metal a lot more descriptive and accurate? Do they belong, without qualification, to the same genre as Van Halen? Is there nothing unique or specific in their sound, lyrics, and atmosphere that would tend to set them apart from "metal metal" (ok, my term.. you know, "pure" metal) bands like Priest, Maiden, Manowar? Sure there is, and a genre was founded based on it! Yes, heavy metal as we know it was itself founded, largely, on early Sabbath. But it was the Doom bands that were faithful to the entire Black Sabbath package. So the label is a lot more, as I said, specific and accurate. Saying that Doom didn't exist before Sabbath doesn't work, as I have endevored to demonstrate, because what we mean by "heavy metal" also didn't exist for nearly as long.

Here is an excerpt from Allmusic's article on Doom Metal (http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:11956) Inspired largely by the lumbering dirges and stoned, paranoid darkness of Black Sabbath, doom metal is one of the very few heavy metal subgenres to prize feel and mood more than flashy technique (though the latter can certainly be present). Even more indebted to Sabbath than most metal, doom metal is extremely slow, sludgy, and creepy, feeling so heavy it can barely move; its deliberate pace and murky guitars are meant to evoke (what else?) a sense of impending doom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.147.147 (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That was quite a poetic and colour platform for a debate. But Wiki isn't built on poetic pov and cotton candy fluff. It's built on consensus and consensus is, and always has been heavy metal. And anything else is just unreq'd superfluity that wastes space in the box. Libs (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the link you provided to NPOV is a legitamate critisism of what I wrote above. NPOV involves fairly representing all significant published views, and there is a strong assocoation between Sabbath and Doom Metal in any literature on the subject. As far as your sarcastistic comment on my writing style, and your point about the consensus of editors, I was after all writing on the discussicion page, not the proper article. There would be nothing flowery about writing "Doom Metal" in the infobox. And I acknowledged the lack of consensus at the outset, this was an attempt to garner some. But I guess you have me at No Original Reseach, inasmuch as Wiki's article on that requirement stipulates no synthesis of published materials to advance a viewpoint. I cited a couple of sources but put the pieces together myself. So before I would edit the proper article, I would need to find significant sources that reflect my thinking here. I do think that there is already enough out there on Sabbath and Doom to place that tag alongside Heavy Metal in the infobox, but i know that that too is a losing battle against you and others at this point.... cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.147.147 (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Revamp started
Black Sabbath should be a FA. So I've begun a revamp of this thing, and it needs major work. There are only a handful of citations, choppy prose throughout, ect ect ect. I've begun with the intro, and I will work section by section, sourcing and rewriting stuff. I have a biography book "Wheels of Confusion", and I have found a source for interview reprints that covers from the mid 80's on ( http://www.black-sabbath.com/interviews/index.html ) but if anyone else has sources, (especially 70's & early 80's interviews) please let me know. Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 09:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * www.Black-Sabbath.com is a collection of other people's work and holds very little original material. You might try www.theinterviewarchives.com for actual first hand interviews of the various members of the group.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.139.139.115 (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I ended up using a hardcopy book for most of the cites, along with the AMG bio and a few other sources, but I will check out the interview archives as well - you can't have too many cites! Skeletor2112 (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You could try forking out some stuff from the H and H tour article. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

BS?
I have never heard anyone refer to them as BS, which is more commonly used as an abbreviation for "Bullshit" than anything else. Ljoneill (talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.199.200 (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Proto-Doom?
Would Sabbath be called Proto-Doom? Cause they basically created doom metal...

=={667}== (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, they could be called that, but not in this article because, by the very fact that you thought this up and proposed it, it would be orginal research. Jgm (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. =={667}== (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Could we possibly write in the genre spot "Various forms of heavy metal," because they have been referenced as doing doom metal, speed metal, and thrash metal, not to mention the experimentation they did with strings and synthesizers in the late Osbourne and Dio eras?192.104.254.216 (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

i agree with the proposition above. this is something that must be decided upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.16.166 (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My vote would be a paragraph under the already existing Legacy heading starting with a sentance similar to "Black Sabbath were pioneers of Hevay Metal and many of its subsequent subgenres including..." My only caveat would be that each subgenre would have to be referenced, but I'm sure that plenty of quotes exist from musicians in these subgenres stating how Sabbath influenced them. For example; in the liner notes to Nativity in Black Peter Steele say "...Sabbath are directly responsible for all metal, hardcore, thrash, and goth music.  They are the premier goth band."  Now if Peter Steele says a band is goth, who are any of us to disagree? J04n (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Previous discussion and consensus for the page shows that the agreed stand on the subject is that the band were an influence on doom metal simply because they played a few slow heavy metal songs. But were never actually a doom metal band themselves. As for proto doom, that is like all other make believe genres that only exist on Wikipedia and no where else in music press. Proto 'anything' is just a genre some bored teenager thinks up when they're on their lunch break. Black Sabbath are just a heavy metal band and nothing else. They have influenced just as many speed metal bands as they have doom metal bands. And they themselves have been neither. GripTheHusk (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

List of cover songs
Why not someone start a section or a link to a new page with all the Sabbath songs covered by other bands. There are enough of them to fill a page and it would be nice. —Preceding unsignedfugeeaters comment added by 121.120.1.107 (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

discussion moved from article
Hi there Skelletor? Instead of hiding behind an alias, why not let me contribute to your index. Whats wrong with us trying to get our book and website recognised and published on the web where-ever it may be? Our book is the best that is available on the subject, ask the other authors who have Sabbath books out there!!

Come on, get REAL! GIVE US A POSTING, NOT AN EXCUSE!!!!Slackhaddock (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC) (Moved from article - FreplySpang 19:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC))


 * Uh, its called a screen name. I doubt your name is Slackhaddock... And this is not an "index", its an encyclopedia. Not a place to advertise your book.  The reference section of the article is for references that were used to write the article. As stated on your talk page, Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Skeletor2112 (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of "detuned"
What exactly does "detuned" mean when discussing guitar playing? The word "detuned" was not found at dictionary.com. It presumably means "out of tune" but the guitars were indeed tuned. Can we change this to "non-standard tuning", or better yet, note the actual tunings that were used? Simishag (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Detuned = down tuned. Not out of tune, but tuned to a lower key. Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Awards
I (hastily) made an awards list for Black Sabbath here. I know they have won more than a grammy, and it is still under construction. Would it not be a good idea to briefly discuss the accolades the band has achieved, with some mention of this article? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Justice to Lester Bangs?
While I'm not a big fan of Lester Bangs, I think your quotations from him concerning Sabbath misrepresent his views. What you quote is accurate, but taken out of context. Bangs was a fan of Sabbath, though he was critical of them. You might want to revisit his reviews of the band. They are more nuanced than your article would have us believe.216.48.60.35 (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

More on Genre Descriptions
I made some changes to the genre listed on each album.

I have listed each album as Heavy Metal/Hard Rock.

I include Hard Rock, as Tony Iommi states in the Last Supper DVD that he has always considered Sabbath a Hard Rock band, and that "I have no idea where that term (metal) came from!".

Also, there are many Sabbath songs that aren't really metal; for example, "Never Say Die", "Rock 'n Roll Doctor", "Living For Today"; etc.......

Doom metal and Stoner/Sludge Metal are seperate styles that came later, although Sabbath were HIGHLY influential. I would mention this fact and link to it appropriately in the particular article's content.

Also, Black Sabbath is FAR from Gothic Rock gothic rock is stuff like Christian Death, Bauhaus, etc....etc.....

If you disagree, that's fine, but I felt that I had to brings these points up. Electrokinesis (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Removing gothic/doom/sludge and all that other stupidity is great... well done. Adding hard rock is just adding superfluity to a box field where the only rule is "aim for generality". It's a similar situtation when a heavy metal band, like Iron Maiden, does 1 track that has shades of progressive metal to it and next thing you see is editors adding progressive metal to the band's infobox? Or to half the catalog. Superfluity. Black Sabbath are a heavy metal band first and foremost. No sense in cluttering up their infobox with anything else. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 10:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fair :-) Electrokinesis (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to come a bit late to this particular verbal party, but if a band doesn't even consider themselves metal, and considers themselves "Hard Rock", shouldn't that count? Hard Rock is generally defined as pentatonic, blues-influenced rock, with usually distorted guitars, and driving rhythms. It was a term that existed when Sabbath was created, before "Heavy Metal" became a widely-publicized genre. Early Sabbath, at least in my opinion, is definitely Hard Rock, and just listen to Paranoid or Volume Four or an early Sabbath album like that. There are definite, tangible blues influences, and they were definitely referred to as Hard Rock at the time. AlexRochon (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Look at Motörhead, Lemmy does not like the heavy metal label. However, just because he doesn't like the label and says he plays "Rock n’ Roll" does not mean Motörhead is not metal. Also as has been mentioned many times the purpose of the box field is to "aim for generality." Adding anything beyond Heavy metal is just superfluous. 216.160.119.187 (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Seventh Star sounds like the Sunset Strip?
I keep reading this description everywhere.

"Seventh Star" does sound different, but how does it sound like the Sunset Strip bands?

Those groups are more glam oriented, like Motley Crue, Ratt, Van Halen - etc, etc, etc........

IMHO, "Seventh Star" sounds more like Black Sabbath than the majority of everything that the band recorded with Tony Martin; especially "The Eternal Idol". That record is way more Sunset Strip!

If anything, perhaps "Seventh Star" is more Whitesnake sounding. After all, Tony Iommi did try to recruit David Coverdale as a singer at one point. They're also British. :-)

I know that Hugh Gilmour said that the record sounded "more American" in the extras on the Black Sabbath Story Volume 2 DVD, but really, Sunset Strip?

May I re-write this part with a different description of the album?


 * It's all pov. Wikipedia should have all adjectives and comnparisons removed completely. Without a valid ref supporting any opinion no matter how small there shouldn't be any sort of "sounds likes" or "compared to's" or "similar as" anywhere in the article. Or any article. They shouldn't read like editorials. They shouldn't be written like blog styled news articles. And they shouldn't come across as reviews. Just cold, dry boring facts with citations. A good re-write of anything comparing any Black Sabbath release to anyone or any scene, would be to just remove it completely. This article is 84 kb in size. that means it could easily have 30-40 kb of superfluity removed from it. Start with the adjectives and comparisons. That would be a good start. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's "Black Sabbath is" not "Black Sabbath are"
"Black Sabbath" is not plural, and AllMusic supports my assertion. It says: "Black Sabbath has been so influential in the development of heavy metal rock music as to be a defining force in the style."|SABBATH&sql=11:gifoxqw5ldse~T1 If "Black Sabbath" was plural, then the previous quoted sentence should have read: "Black Sabbath have been so influential in the development of heavy metal rock music as to be a defining force in the style." I have made changes to reflect this. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey TD Fan, I referred to WP:ENGVAR in my edit summary, but glancing at it now I don't see what I'm referring to, so it might be somewhere else. Anyway, British band names are always treated as plural, see Pink Floyd, Radiohead, Iron Maiden for some examples. American bands names would be singular though. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay no problems. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the whole singular/plural issue is specifically mentioned anywhere in policy. You were right to point at EngVar, which is a generalised rule that basically states respect the differences. &#9775;Ferdia O'Brien (T) / (C) 19:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Humorous
Humorous is the correct spelling world-wide, see here, here, here, and here. &#9775;Ferdia O'Brien (T) / (C) 01:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think once or twice it got reverted by accident, during a reversion of vandalism. That is the correct spelling :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh man. Sorry for the reverts. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem man, honest mistake to make :). &#9775;Ferdia O'Brien (T) / (C) 00:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Rarity of Born Again in the States
Shouldn't it be added in the Born Again article that the album was never officially released in the United States? That's why you have to buy it either on Ebay or at a used cd store (found that out the hard way). 68.218.99.135 (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The album was released in the US, the CD was not.152.133.6.2 (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Something that should be added regarding Bill Ward
Bill Ward rejoined the band in 1984 and played on the 1985 Live Aid reunion. But the drummer on sEventh Star was Eric Singer. The main article doesn't state why Bill Ward left. If anyone knows could you please tell me, or just put it in the article? 68.218.101.239 (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and also Ozzy was not fired from the band, he left when his father got cancer and never asked to rejoin. So Black Sabbath had to get a new singer, Dio. So can u just change that plz??? ty —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacksabbath1971 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ozzy says he was fired. The remainder of Sabbath say he was fired, with Bill Ward being the one to tell him. It's on 'Don't Blame Me' and 'The Black Sabbath Story' videos, plus many other mentions in interviews down the years. True, initially Ozzy wasn't saying that, but that's down to pride. No-one likes to be fired. 86.128.47.6 (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Al, UK

Hippies
Everyone I know considers Black Sabbath to be a hippie band, and their fans to be hippies. This needs to be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.187.21 (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh... no. Completely unsourced, not to mention untrue. If you add that, I guarantee you that it will be reverted instantly. 68.217.36.159 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, yes it is unsourced. But how would you describe a bunch of guys who wear bell-bottoms and floral shirts, have long greasy hair and fluffy facial hair, and sing songs about "Sweet Leaf", or anti-Vietnam war protest songs? I won't add it as no mainstream corporate publication/newsletter regards them as anything other than "The First Heavy Metal Band"(which obviously they are/were not). Still, take away the pseudo-"Satanist" gimmick, and what have you got? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.187.21 (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with user 68.217.36.159. They are not a hippie band. I never even heard of Black Sabbath being called that until I read this talk page. But it doesn't matter - individual opinions aren't what Wikipedia goes by. Festering Rat Corpse (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Must listen to "Electric Funeral" and "Killing Yourself to Live" again - I must have missed the hippie vibes... Far far far too heavy and antisocial to be hippies. Anyway, in 1970 everyone wore floral shirts and had long hair. It means nothing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The following is a quote from Ozzy Osbourne, which he said on the 1999 live DVD The Last Supper: "If you ever go down to San Francisco, be sure to wear a flower in your hair... Screw that, let's go over there and scare everyone!" True quote - if you think I'm making this up, then you've obviously never watched that DVD. Now, how can you still honestly argue that Black Sabbath is a hippie band? The truth is, you can't. I'll argue no more of this. 68.155.134.137 (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, yeah and Marlyn Manson calls himself the "AntiChrist Superstar", but does that make it true? The point was to add a mention in the article that some people view Black Sabbath as a Hippie band due to their look, various of their lyrics, and the fact that many of their fans are also into hippie music. It's not meant to be about nitpicking. It's that the idea that everyone views them as "Metal Gods" and "the Most Innovative Heavy Metal Band" is mot universally accepted, and many people see them as basically being the early 70's equivalent of what Manson was in the mid/late 90's. Simply adding a line to the article that "While most people view Black Sabbath as perhaps the first Heavy Metal band, many others view them as just another Rock band born out of the Age of Bellbottoms and Marijuana". 41.245.187.21 (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, so if you can find a decent cite that backs that up, go right ahead. You won't though, because it's a load of rubbish. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Too true! Everyone should just ignore this blatantly inane idiot. No one views them as hippies (except said idiot). They were the first heavy metal band and I don't know and have never heard of any fan of Black Sabbath who liked "hippie music". Fans of Black Sabbath are usually into doom metal or pretty much any other form of metal (even some of the crappier kinds sadly). Did I say this was all inane? Let me repeat myself. We should ignore this inane idiot. He has no proof, he will find no proof, he is just a blathering piece of stupid. Case dismissed.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 16:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, there is no need for comments such as "inane idiot". Secondly, hippies are more than just sounds, there's a hippie look, a hippie attitude, a hippie lifestyle, and guys with long greasy hair, furry facial hair, floral shirts, bellbottoms, who smoke lots of weed and go on about political issues and "War Pigs" are clearly hippies. The point (again) was that certain people(such as you) consider Black Sabbath to be "the first heavy metal band" (how can that be when there were metal bands before them?), many other people view Black Sabbath as just another band born out of the whole Woodstock Thing. Perhaps "hippie" can be interpreted wrongly. You know the whole Joplin/Creedence/Hendrix/CS&N/Allmans/Mountain etc 41.245.136.109 (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Would that mean that Roger Waters of Pink Floyd was a hippie. I don't think so. Just because you have long hair and write songs that criticize the government (Roger Waters has long hair; as for the second comment, look at the lyrics on "Animals" and "The Final Cut") doesn't mean they are hippies. I doubt that if Green Day started wearing floral shirts and bellbottoms, smoking marijuana, and writing songs like "War Pigs", you would not call them "hippies". (By the way, I hate Green Day!)192.104.254.216 (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

what band was playing TRUE metal (with no overt blues sounds like led zep) before black sabbath? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.155.134.6 (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous comment to make, as your definition of True Metal would likely be different from another guy's, and both of yours would be different from a third guy's definition. The term "heavy Metal" has in fact been twisted, distorted, and completely changed over the years. The current (2008) definition differs from what was called "heavy Metal" in 1998, in 1988, 1978, 1968. Even today you could ask 5 different guys who consider themselves "Metal" fans to define the genre, and chances are, you'd get at least 3 very different types of answer. Furthermore, a great many people would consider a LOT of material on albums such as "Black Sabbath", "Paranoid" etc to be NOT True Metal, and in fact, not even semi-metal. YOUR definition of "Heavy Metal" has Black Sabbath as the truest form of Heavy Metal there is? Remember the term "Heavy Metal" had been around for years before February 13 1970. Likewise there are many bands tagged "Metal" that have come out in the last 38 years who sound NOTHING like Black Sabbath. So what exactly is "TRUE Metal"? It's really only your definition. 41.245.164.32 (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think its credible to consider some Sabbath stuff "hard rock" (I just heard paranoid on the classic rock station earlier today), and it certainly makes sense to label them proto-doom metal as suggested above (it was immediately claimed that such a genre label would necessarily be unsourced; there are many sourced identifying BS as the progenitors and template of doom metal, its a matter of mere semantics about whether or not someone specifically affixed the term "proto-doom metal" to them previously). However, suggesting that Sab are hippie rock is, as a number have already stauchly pointed out, ridiculous! Anti-war? The Dixie Chicks are anti-war, are they the same genre as Anti-Flag? Did drugs? Yeah, that narrows the field. The "hippie" criteria suggested above can be applied broadly to youth culture of the late 60's/early 70's, but clearly Sab does not represent its core values. Black Sabbath are to the Greatful Dead as Night of the Living Dead was to Jesus Christ Superstar... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.147.147 (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Merged awards section
I merged the awards section from Articles for deletion/List of Black Sabbath awards. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 23:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Doom metal
Can't doom metal be added as a genre next to heavy metal. While Black Sabbath are known as pioneers of heavy metal, they are commonly called pioneers of doom metal too. The metal-archives has Black Sabbath as Traditional heavy metal and doom metal. 68.102.235.239 (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed and the answer is no. They are an influence on doom metal because they occasionally played their style of heavy metal very slow. But slow heavy metal isn't doom metal it's just slow heavy metal. Also. the metal-archives website is just an amateur fanzine and cannot be used as a reference as it is not a reliable source. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 10:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

the FIRST "HEAVY METAL" band in the history OBVIOUS...
http://classicrock.about.com/od/a1/ig/Black-Sabbath/


 * HEAVY METAL born in birmingham, England
 * Black sabbath the pionners of heavy metal


 * http://classicrock.about.com/od/a1/ig/Black-Sabbath/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertrocker (talk • contribs) 04:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Uber-fanboyism needs a real citation... not about.com nonsense. Black Sabbath sounded like Jethro Tull until they heard other early heavy metal bands and pushed their sound into that same artery. Hard to be first when someone else is doing it ahead of you. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Tiny change required
"As one of the most influentialpeople.heavy metal bands of all time," - Could someone please fix this? I dont know how. Tiwaking (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC) Tiwaking (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Genre
Im not denying that Black Sabbath are quintessentially 'Heavy Metal', but like so many other musicians and groups, alot of their music [styles] and therefore particular genres get overlooked. I would like to set this right; i suggest adding 'Hard rock' and 'Progressive rock' something that as been totally overlooked. If you look up the definition prog rock and listen to their music then you know that this is true. Lukestar1991 (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just heavy metal is perfectly fine. Hard rock is just superfluity and progressive rock would be out of place because the band have never played any prog rock in their career. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * NEVER played progressive, huh? So I guess you've never heard the songs "Megalomania," "A National Acrobat," or "Symptom of the Universe." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.150.217 (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Bad examples. None of those songs are even close to progressive rock. They are heavy metal songs. One of them borders on being speed metal. You should read the progressive rock article to try and get an understanding of what prog rock actually is. Wether B (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's widely accepted that Sabbath Bloody Sabbath contains progressive rock elements, including acoustics ("Fluff"), synthesizers and keyboards ("Who Are You?"), stringed instruments, and complex orchestral arrangements. True, it's still a very "heavy metal" record, but these prog tendencies should not be overlooked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.219.204 (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be widely accepted by the person making the post above that there is some sort of phantom prog element to that album. But really there isn't and the consensus on this project is that the album is just a heavy metal album... like all their albums are. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ozzy?
At the beginning of the article, it says that Ozzy was fired, but later on, it says he quit. Which one is correct? 4nthr4x (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He was fired. The Real Libs-speak politely 03:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Heavy Metal?
I sort of find it funny how they're classified as "heavy" metal when almost all modern metal makes it sound like soft rock. Perhaps you should recategorize all of the classic metal bands, because their albums don't sound at all like metal. Or maybe it's just the EQ on the CDs. 24.87.89.217 (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh huh. And in light of deathgrind's rise, we should recategorize Black Sabbath as sunshine pop. --Tim010987 (talk) 09:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Current line-up
The main page states the current line-up is

Current line-up

* Ozzy Osbourne – lead vocals (1968–1979, 1997–present) * Tony Iommi – guitars (1968–present) * Geezer Butler – bass (1968–1984, 1990–1994, 1997–present) * Bill Ward – drums, percussion (1968–1980, 1983, 1984, 1994, 1997–1998, 1998–present)

However, there is no statement from the owner of the brand "Black Sabbath", Tony Iommi, to support this. Iommi told Billboard.com earlier this year, "It really is BLACK SABBATH, whatever we do. We just choose to go out as HEAVEN AND HELL so everyone knows what they're getting [and] so people won't expect to hear 'Iron Man' and all those songs. We've done them for so many years, it's nice to do just all the stuff with did with Ronnie again."

So the current line-up is, as stated by the owner of the trademark Black Sabbath

Ronnie James Dio Tony Iommi Geezer Butler Vinny Appice

Furthermore, there has been an official release under the moniker "Black Sabbath" (The Dio Years), with exactly this line-up, and with new songs written by this line-up under the name "Black Sabbath"

The main page should be changed to reflect provable reality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.74.101 (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the main page says (as comment), on the current line-up "Heavan and Hell is not Black Sabbath, please do not change, if you disagree bring it up on the discussion page". O have brought it up long ago, and backed it by proper referencing. No answer. Therefore, I am going to change the main page to reflect reality as asserted by the owner of the brand "Black Sabbath". Opinions do not matter in Wikipedia, provable facts do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nunoni (talk • contribs) 13:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I take it then you'll be requesting a merge between the two articles and conducting a page merge history yourself?--Alf melmac 13:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to back the Ozzy line-up as current with proper external references. This is Wikipedia. Your opinion does not matter if you can't support it by references. As for the H&H page, it's a different page. Nunoni (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Billboard is referring to the new line-up as Heaven and Hell not Black Sabbath -J04n (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you wish to talk about references, Nunoni, then your reference is not a third-party one as required by Reliable sources. Reuters view H&H as seperate from BS, even when they quote the line you added, in news about them releasing an album under the H&H name - Heaven And Hell, the band featuring the post-Ozzy Osbourne members of Black Sabbath, will release its first album under that name on April 28. Again I'll ask - you'll be requesting a merge as you believe them to be the one and same (based on the words of one of the band members)?--Alf melmac  14:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And Rolling Stone's biography of them has, at the end, "In 2007, Iommi and Butler reunited with Appice and Dio to record new material for the compilation Black Sabbath: The Dio Years (Number 54); that configuration of the group toured as Heaven and Hell (to avoid being confused with the Osbourne-fronted Black Sabbath) into the year 2008. A new Heaven and Hell album is slated for 2009. " Not to be confused with Black Sabbath... this is current non-third party reference which as Ozzy is not mentioned as having departed, therefore inlcudes Ozzy as a part of Black Sabbath.--Alf melmac 14:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I do believe someone is being needlessly problematic over this. It is widely accepted and even more widely known that the information in this article as it stands (i.e. with Ozzy still "in" the band) is 100% correct. And that Heaven and Hell is a new incarnation of a classic line-up of Sabbath. And that the reasons for the distinction have been made to avoid confusion. So... I wonder why someone persists in their confusion? To be deliberately difficult? Or honestly confused? I think I know which. – B.hotep •talk• 16:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said Monsieur Hotep. H&H are a new band... separate from Black Sabbath. Iommi has clearly stated that the 4 members of the band that were inducted into the R&R HoF are the lifetime "official? members of Black Sabbath... which is why his new project is called Heaven And Hell.... because it's a new band. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Furthermore, Ozzy was inducted into both the UK and US Halls of Fame as a member of Black Sabbath. I could cite that, but cannot be truly arséd! – B.hotep •talk• 16:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The official Black Sabbath website has a picture with Osbourne and Ward on the front page. -J04n (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Time to archive?
This page is getting a little ungainly. The "active" topics seem to be active band members & genres. Can/should we archive this page and restart with those two headers? -J04n (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless anyone objects, I am going to archive this page in 48 hours. -J04n (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Go for it. It's far better to focus discussion on the active topics rather than having them mixed up with assorted minor and resolved issues. ~ mazca  t 15:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Born Again and Seventh Star
Unless there is objection, I'm going to split up the the section "Born Again and Seventh Star" into two sections. -J04n (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. I'm surprised that the two sections were merged to begin with, b/c they're two completely different phases of the band's history. Born Again was the last stage of the band with every original member (minus Ozzy), while Seventh Star was basically Tony's solo band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.174.219.204 (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic References
Throughout this article, Allmusic's critical reaction to Sabbath albums is related as if these reactions were happening upon the initial release of the albums. Allmusic has only existed since 1991, so citing its reactions to Sabbath albums from the 1970's as if the two were concurrent is rather misleading, even if unintentional. This needs to be fixed to make the encyclopedic nature of this article adhere more closely to reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.36.97 (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this completely. I put off editing because I wanted to substitute in contemorary (to the albums) reviews but couldn't find any.  So, I went in and added comments (such as "two decades after its release...")  I think my edits, while improving the honesty of the page, decreased the readabilty.  I am tempted to remove the reviews from the text but will wait a bit and see if anyone improves my wordage.  I only edited up to Headless Cross.  I believe the reviews of Dehumanizer on were actualy contemporary, but I could be wrong. -J04n (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Black Sabbath are an English heavy metal band."
Who the FUCK keeps changing this first line repeatedly??? It's perfect and totally comprehensible to everyone! --Pletet (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)