Talk:Black Sabbath/Archive 5

Black Sabbath a rock band?
Black Sabbath clearly aren't just traditional rock. Black Sabbath were pioneers of early heavy metal, and countless heavy metal artists are influenced by them. Compared to metal today, Black Sabbath would probably be considered identifiable to that of hard rock, but back in the 1970s, they were identifiable as metal. Sorry, but Black Sabbath can't be seen as rock. Jonah Ray Cobbs 03:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)JRC3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRC3 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi. Welcome to the English language Wikipedia. Here, we use the English language to discuss things. When existing consensus is for "rock", and an embedded note invites editors to discuss FIRST, before changing to an unsourced interpretation, it is intended that there be some discussion BEFORE making changes against consensus. Not AFTER. If you would like this explaining in any other European language, please express a preference, and we will try to accommodate your needs. Until then, please follow established protocols. Thanks. -- Rodhull andemu  04:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume this thread was begun regarding the opening line of the page and the debate if it should read Black Sabbath are a Heavy Metal band or are a Rock band. The opening line of Heavy metal music is "Heavy metal...is a genre of rock music."  I do not believe there is any debate over that phrase, and for the sake of this argument debate I will continue the assumption that that phrase is accepted by all involved.  I will also go on the assumption that everyone agrees that Black Sabbath is a heavy metal band.  So, if my two are assumption are true Black Sabbath, and all other heavy metal bands, are rock bands.  If you read the whole page (or even the whole introduction) there is no questioning the fact that they are pioneers and practitioners of heavy metal and are portrayed as so on this page.  The opening sentence, however, serves as a broad overview of what Black Sabbath is are.  I am in support of the opening line reading rock.  On a related note, I am in favor of the infobox reading heavy metal (and only heavy metal).-J04n (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Very much in favour of J04n's idea of rock in the opening line and only heavy metal in the info-box (and shooting any and all drive by genre fiddlers who have never once added anything).--Alf melmac 09:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Metal is a sub-genre of Rock--Bodigami (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Heck, debateably, they fall under the category of doom metal. 69.181.115.105 (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, now... If other bands are introduced as metal bands in the same way that Black Sabbath is introduced as a rock band, yet everyone agrees that Sabbath was metal, shouldn't one or the other be changed? For example, Slipknot is introduced as metal. Now, if we wish to open these articles generally, shouldn't they be specified as a rock band? And if not, should Sabbath then be listed as metal? Some consistency must be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.16.19 (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Genre: Part 1
You know something? black sabbath is METAL! NOT ROCK! Ok? I edited it and you do not remove it and type in rock :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.179.1.111 (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And you can provide a balance of cites that supports your preferred version?--Alf melmac 20:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Watch the movie " a Headbangers Journey!" Documentar About metal! they says that black sabbath was the first METAL band in the world! And if you watch that movie they says that is Metal but much people call it rock because it's so much away from the metal today! and now we would have called it rock but it's metal! ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.149.29.58 (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll just point out this is currently a Good Article nominee, and one thing that will fail it, jeopardising a lot of hard work, is edit-warring. Consensus exists for Rock, not Metal. -- Rodhull andemu  20:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, if only it were that simple. Please read the above analysis. Meanwhile, "rock" is reliably-sourced, and consensus exists to describe it as we currently do. Changing this without negotiation is unacceptable, and I am forced to semi-protect this article for a week so that discussions may proceed, but constructively. Thanks. -- Rodhull andemu  16:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To those that are insisting that Black Sabbath is a metal band, you are correct no one is saying that they are not, and I would argue that they are the first and greatest metal band of all time. However, Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia) is not the proper venue for that argument.  If you read the whole Black Sabbath article proper credit is given to the band for their influence on metal and as a metal band.  Your issue appears to be with the first sentence stating that they are a rock band, if the entire article referred to them as a rock band I would be arguing with you, but it is only the opening sentence.  The opening sentence in Wikipedia is normally very general with more specific details to follow.  All metal bands are rock bands and the opening sentence should reflect this.  J04n(talk page) 17:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the genre say heavy metal AND hard rock? Where is the line crossed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 10thdayoftheweek (talk • contribs) 06:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You will have to be more specific as to where you are talking about. The editors of this page have come to a consensus that the opening sentence should be broad and refer to them as a rock band and then go on in the body of the article to describe their contributions and influence on other genres.  Consensus has also been reached that ultimately they are a heavy metal band and this is reflected in the infobox. J04n(talk page) 09:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup, Black Sabbath are a rock band… in the same way that technically, bands as varied as Coldplay and Meshuggah are also rock bands. It is indeed disappointingly vague but with a band that's been going so long and produced as much different stuff as Black Sabbath have, I accept it's the only single word that really describes them for the opening sentence. I do think that rock in the opening sentence, heavy metal in the infobox, and a discussion in the article is the best way to deal with it - there is no right answer. They're generally identified as a metal band, but some of their stuff is really pushing that definition, too. At least this way we can also better deal with the genre trolls - the types that will endlessly edit-war over the precise sub-sub-genre of a band they like or dislike. You can't argue with "rock", you can just wish it was more precise! ~ mazca  t 11:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was that the infobox should say both "heavy metal" and "hard rock" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 10thdayoftheweek (talk • contribs) 08:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny how when someone has a point, the benevolent editors just stop replying. I agree with what the first thread above said. If all metal is rock(which I only agree to for the sake of credited sources) then why do bands such as Slipknot have the distinction of being called a heavy metal band in the opening phrase? (I checked and the majority of highly influential metal bands as well; Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Saxon, Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, etc) Sex Pistols are identified as Punk Rock as well, not just rock. Somebody's not being reasonable here. Honestly sources are an invalid argument that doesn't tip in the favor of one or the other; tons of sources say rock or heavy metal while referring to Black Sabbath. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.119.37 (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hippies
Black Sabbath were part of the hippie culture. They had flowery shirts, long hair, fuzzy beards, and sang slow "spacey" songs about "Sweet Leaf" and anti-Vietnam stuff like "War Pigs". There should be a link to hippies cultures, hippie music, and the like. Any thoughts? 41.245.156.197 (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, this topic has been previously discussed here and the concensus was not to include it. J04n(talk page) 11:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like consensus. More just soapboxing and POv rambling. That's consensus??? 41.245.156.197 (talk) 07:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Although folks were rude, everyone but the original poster (which I see now was you) my mistake, similar IP agreed that they were not a hippie band.  A quote from Ozzy was included which expressed the band's opinion of the hippie culture.  Most importantly in all of the articles and books written about both Black Sabbath and hippies, not one links the two. Without any sources backing up the link it is purely POV. J04n(talk page) 07:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably was the same user - both IPs geolocate to the same place and the same ISP. In any case, while the previous conversation was certainly rather rude, the consensus was clearly there. The big problem with including your personal opinion about their hippie status is that it isn't verifiable as an opinion published in any kind of reliable sources. If you can source the opinion, we can discuss it sensibly, but just saying you and your friends think they were part of the hippy culture is just going to lead to soapboxing as other people refute your personal opinion with their own. ~ mazca  t 11:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

well the hippie culture is one of those things that would only rarely come to my mind when i listen to black sabbath :D their sound and lyrics are just too dark and heavy in comparison to the hippie bands that still were around in those days. sure, they were born into the music scene of the 60ties with all it's psychedelic rock hippie music and have their roots in this kind of music but they created a whole new sound and athmosphere even when they still were a jazz/blues band... it was this dark and heavy guitar sound that even in those times made you aware of the fact there still was much more to be expected from these guys later on! although in a 2001 rolling stone interview ozzy was stated saying this:

"...Were you guys interested in black magic -- even a little?

''We couldn't conjure up a fart. We'd get invitations to play witches' conventions and black masses in Highgate Cemetery. I honestly thought it was a joke. We were the last hippie band -- we were into peace.'' ..."

i think he only meant this as a joke... he was only referring to the media and press people who overacted and dramatised their relation to black magic and the occult. they created that kind of music that later was beeing called heavy metal. at least that's the way i see it. --Pletet (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Doom metal
I know it's been discussed before and Black Sabbath is not considered doom metal. I'm not even going to try to argue that they are as I do see why they would not be considered doom, even if they sound like doom. However, there is absolutely no doubt that their early work heavily influenced the doom metal genre (the main influence for it). It's not only on the doom metal article, but there are numerous sources that talk about this. I'm just curious as to why it says nothing about that in this article. If it's a matter of sources, those aren't hard to find at all. I could easily find a handful of reliable sources right now that talk of BS's infl. on doom.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 17:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The primary point of contention in the past has been people seeking to declare Black Sabbath a doom metal band themselves. I fully agree with you that some of their stuff is very much in a doom metal style; but most coverage generally doesn't consider them "a doom metal band".
 * Conversely, I doubt there'd be any objection to a well-sourced discussion of their influence on doom metal as you suggest. A brief paragraph in the "influence" section would be a good place for this; if you're aware of some good sources by all means add it; or link them here so someone else can have a look. ~ mazca  t 17:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would go so far as to add a new well sourced section (or possibly a subsection under influence) called Legacy that would describe all of the genres and subgenres that have been created as a result of their influence. J04n(talk page) 18:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be OK.. but should just be brief... and cited from an RS. Based on the previous history of the original poster I would suggest adding any potential text here on this talk page along with refs and let the community piece the wording together before adding to the main article. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is doom metal really an official genre or style, or is it more of a description to describe the look and attitude of the band, as well as lyrical content. Is there a real difference in sound between heavy metal and doom? Krobertj (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Simply put, doom metal is usually slower, and often tuned to a lower key. Basically, Iron Man-style songs, or (hah) Hand of Doom, or Electric Funeral, or ..... you get the idea. Luminifer (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture description
I don't think that the picture in the paragraphe "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath and Sabotage (1973–1976)" was taken on the California Jam, as stated. If you watch the California-Jam video footage, you see that the stage looks different and they wear different clothes. Where this one was taken, I do not know though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.92.0 (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

On a different picture, an Ozzy photo from 2007 is out of place, since ti is from a non-Black Sabbath concert. There are plenty of Ozzy pics fronting Black Sabbath around, so why use one from his solo project? Nunoni (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Little note on the Sabbath/Heaven & Hell name thing
In 2007 BLACK SABBATH released BLACK SABBATH: THE DIO YEARS featuring three new songs by BLACK SABBATH featuring Ronnie Dio and Vinny Appice. We could perhaps list that as the last line-up of Black Sabbath to have worked together in any capacity...the last time Black Sabbath did anything was that release. Maybe a "please note that this line-up has not been active since 2005 and that in 2007 the band did 3 songs with Dio and Appice" type comment? The Devil Cried was put out as a single using the Sabbath name too.

This is true. The line up featuring Ozzy and Bill Ward have not been active at all in over 10 years. The current line up showing on the article is false, and there aren't any sources to prove it either. The real current line up features the same members as Black Sabbath had years ago under the same name. They have since given themselves a new name, but that doesn't mean anything. The last active material was performed by Black Sabbath with Dio and Appice for the album The Dio Years. They perform the same material under the Black Sabbath name. And it's not like the album The Mob Rules will be changed "performed by Heaven and Hell." This needs to be changed immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.206 (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, since Ozzy and Bill Ward have not been active in Black Sabbath since the reunion, it shouldn't say anything to this present day. Sources could prove this showing that Iommi is now working with Heaven and Hell, while Ozzy is working on his solo album at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.206 (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah this article should be changed to reflect that. In its current form it's incorrect. Anyone object do changing this?Hoponpop69 (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly object; Heaven & Hell and Black Sabbath are two different bands even though Heaven & Hell is made up of a former line-up of Black Sabbath. Until a reliable source says otherwise it should stay as is.  Osbourne is even suing for a share of the Band's name.  Even the official website has the original 4 members. J04n(talk page) 03:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That doesn`t matter, have you read any of the notes listed aboveÉ I don`t think so. Please read before you post your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.228 (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read the notes listed above as well as those here. What I haven't read is a verifiable source saying that Black Sabbath is no longer the four original members. J04n(talk page) 09:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And have you found a verifiable source mentioning Ozzy is in the band Black Sabbath at the moment? I take it you still don't follow me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.113 (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Rolling Stone biography of Black Sabbath says "...Heaven and Hell (to avoid being confused with the Osbourne-fronted Black Sabbath)..." but the burden of proof is in saying that he left the band not that he is still in the band.  He certainly still considers himself in the band as he is sueing for a share in the bands name.  J04n(talk page) 08:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Ozzy hasn't recorded or played with Black Sabbath in over 10 years doesn't count for anything? And that he has since released 3 more albums from his solo career as well. The fact that Heaven and Hell is together and Ozzy is recording solo now, there is no mention of Black Sabbath at all looming around. The least we can do until somebody finds a reliable source is change the dates of the current line up not mentioning - Present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.85 (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony Iommi's statement at the time of Black Sabbath's induction into the R&R Hall of Fame was quite clear. That the four inducted members were, and always would be, Black Sabbath. So even 20 years from now those 4 band members are the only version of Black Sabbath to fall under that name. With that, there is nothing wrong with stating 1969-onwards for the band. Back in 1979, 1980, 1981 no one would have ever guessed that those 4 members wouldn't reconcile their differences and get back together as Blac Sabbath. But they did. So there is no reason to try and guess that they won't do it again. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly what changes to the article are being put forward here, maybe that could be clarified as the last post by the ips seems to be saying H&H=BS. Looking at "Devil Cried" it is clearly labelled as H&H here's an image of the disc on dio.net. The BS site says about the song "The first single release from the new CD 'Black Sabbath: The Dio Years' will be the track 'The Devil Cried' written & produced by Tony and Ronnie and recorded with Geezer & Vinny in November 2006 in the UK." - the album it supports, Black Sabbath: The Dio Years is a compilation album of stuff recorded in 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1992. Works clearly marked as by H&H being presented as BS on a BS compilation album is clearly false.--Alf melmac 12:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Grammar
"Black Sabbath are a band..."

Wow, fucking genius! A band is singular, thus the title "a" before band. So, this should be "Black Sabbath is a band...".

97.118.65.103 (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Peace.The_Fuck.Out
 * Not really. The long-standing convention here is to treat the names of British groups as mass nouns, so they take the plural rather than the singular. This arises because group names were originally of the form "X and the Ys", e.g. Gerry and the Pacemakers. "The Pacemakers" were plural, and the convention persists to this date. Rodhull  andemu  18:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note that the name of a band is a replacement for the word 'they'. A band (or any other group of humans) is never an it. They are a band... not... it are a band. Every English speaking country in the world uses this collective form... only the U.S. refers to groups as an it. Not sure why?..  'they has just been a-doin that fer a long time'  The Real Libs-speak politely 18:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If the names of British groups is treated as a mass noun, shouldn't mass noun rules apply. Rodulllandemu provided a link to the article on mass nouns, and in the first paragraph, the article stated "In English, mass nouns are characterized by the fact that they cannot be directly modified by a numeral without specifying a unit of measurement, and that they cannot combine with an indefinite article (a or an)". The statement in this article says "Black Sabbath are an English band", but if it is a mass noun, it should not use "a" or "an". Please provide a grammar source for your declaration. Any grammar text book that is in current use would do.Mburrell (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about this?. Rodhull  andemu  20:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably you are not asking that a source be added for a grammar point. It is what it is, and that's that. Band names in British English are treated as plurals, this is not in dispute. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Heavy Metal
Black Sabbath is the first Heavy Metal band! at the time they were considered Heavy Metal, thus making them HEAVY METAL regardless of what ignorant kids who think all 70's music is "classic rock" - Change this now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.213.147 (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not an ignorant kid. I'm 56 and have been writing about rock music for nearly 40 years. When Black Sabbath started, there was no such thing as "heavy metal". That term didn't arise at least until Led Zeppelin, and even then not initially. On the other hand, until you can find a reliable source that describes Black Sabbath as "the first heavy metal band", other than your own personal point of view, I think the consensus and sourced version should prevail. Rodhull  andemu  23:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The first band Labeled as "Heavy Metal" was Sir Lord Baltimore, That was Heavy Metal back then. If this is peoples logic, then in 15 years people are going to think Metallica started Heavy Metal and Black Sabbath will be forgotten... UPDATE: Source - http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/blacksabbath/biography. "...Black Sabbath was the heavy-metal king of the 1970s." 24.118.213.147 (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.213.147 (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Black Sabbath is in fact a hard rock band
Black Sabbath is a hard rock band (back in the day they are heavy metal, but heavy metal is a moving target term, so that means that now they are hard rock. Not unless you call the todays generation of metal being called "Heavy Heavy Metal" Citations needed)

so I need to add Hard rock to their genere and keep heavy metal to their genre because back then it was heavy metal.

and change rock band to hard rock band.

Clue Bot agree that black sabbath is a hard rock band and has a genre of hard rock. If black sabbath is a "rock" band than it is bout the same s the rolling stones.

(btw there aint no "Tilde" on my key board ur crazy) Back in the day it is heavy metal and now since there is heavier metal today it is booted down to hard rock but u can keep heavy metal as a genre because they used to be heavy metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Master of Articles (talk • contribs) 17:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * All keyboards have tildes. Read the other discussions on the topic - Sabbath were not called heavy metal "back in the day" because the term didn't exist then. It's a retrospective tag. They were heavy rock at the time, until someone decided they were heavy metal. Genre disputes on Wikipedia are a waste of time - you get involved in arguments that are totally subjective and ultimately unprovable. You'd be better off spending your time on other things because the genre fascists always get their way. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sabbath was considered heavy metal for most of their career, I think. I know that Rolling Stone reviews from the '70s call them such, and the term 'heavy rock' most likely comes from the terms 'heavy metal,' and 'hard rock' (both of which were already used to refer to rock music in the late '60s).(Albert Mond (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC))

Black Sabbath is also a hard rock band
We all know Black Sabbath is considered the pioneer of heavy metal music but many songs of Sabbath was related to Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and other hard rock bands of that time, like Evil Woman, Wicked World, Fairies Wear Boots, Behind The Wall of Sleep. Analyzing these songs, we cannot call them heavy metal because of the music structure. These songs don't have the same strength of songs like Iron Man, Paranoid, Sweet Leaf, Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, the distortion of these songs is not so heavy as the cited before songs'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.58.202.6 (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sabbath, Zeppelin, and Purple are generally described as the founders of heavy metal, and a source would be the Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal, by Ian Christy. Muttdog (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

A Proposal
You can actually call all of this band's material with Dio as Heaven and Hell. It sounds completely different from the Ozzy-era Sabbath. To me, this band died when Ozzy left. But it lives on (in a way) with Heaven and Hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.132.151 (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that is not for Wikipedia editors to decide. Mob Rules is a Black Sabbath album, says so right on the label. We just record the verifiable facts. J04n(talk page) 19:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

English vs. British
I'm not positive, but there may be some kind of proper naming convention regarding a band's "Place of origin." Since their lyrics are written, and sung in the English language, it may be more useful to point out in this articles header, "B.S. are a British band." This would preclude any ambiguity regarding their place of origin. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a trend to lump anyone or anything originating from GB to simply be British. However there is a growing "culture loss" within certain groups originating from England that being "English" is a lost title. Nowhere is this more prevalent then in the pages of Wikipedia where articles flip-flop daily between English and British. By this the English nationalist pendulum is swinging the other way (starting with the 2011 census). So if a band formed in Birmingham, England and whose main/most notable members were all Birmingham born and raised, they are an English band. Yes they are also British by definition. But if both are absolutely correct I would tend to stay with English since that is the one that has been there the longest. And the one which provokes the fewest edit wars. GripTheHusk (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One has to be very careful with the English/British thing. If there's any doubt as to the Englishness/Scottishness etc of the band members, then "British" is the required option until there's a consensus or a good citation. There's also a trend for members "born in England = English" to be applied in all kinds of inappropriate cases. In the case of Black Sabbath though, four undoubted Brummies form a band in Birmingham = English band, and no-one's going to argue with that, I suspect. Sure, Dio is American, but he's not a main member in this case. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * After checking at WP:Naming conventions I am inclined to agree with the position that "B.S. are an English rock band," is the correct approach. Duly noted! Thanks for the primer! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Genre: Part 2
While I will always consider Black Sabbath one of the greatest heavy metal bands ever, I don't think we should only have metal in their infobox.

They did do many softer songs like "Changes", "Fluff", the very psychedelic "Planet Caravan", "Solitude", "Laguna Sunrise", etc., but we definately can't call them a soft rock band.

They have been described several times as doom metal(which I personally disagree with) like here for instance http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:gifpxqq5ld6e. Master of Reality also provided a blue print for a lot of stoner rock bands.

Many times I've seen sludge metal or sludge used to describe them. Sources: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/6626687/298_master_of_reality http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/music/sites/budgie/ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/arts/music/05wpop.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&sq=Melvins%20sludge&st=cse&scp=1 A quote from Rock the Rough Guide page 590, "Black Sabbath pioneered the bottom-heavy sludge that would become heavy metal", 1001 albums You Must Hear Before you die page 257, "Long before Black Sabbath broke down as a result of drug-fueled infighting, there was a brief period of drug-fueled sludge-metal genius".

Sabbath did explored pro-Christian lyric themes(they have even said that their songs were anti-santanic, which may surpise many of you.), but not enough for us to really class them as a Christian rock band.

And of course some of their songs may qualify as just straightforward hard rock(like "Rock n Roll Doctor" for instance). And another quote from 1001 Albums... page 340, "Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath may have blazed the trail for hard rock,".

And of course they first album has a lot of blues on it, especially "The Warning" cover which definately isn't metal. "The Wizard" also has very bluesy harmonica. I willing to say that Sabbath were as blues based as Zeppelin and Purple.

Bottom line: I believe personally that to even out their softer songs and basic rock I think we should also have hard rock in the infobox and perhaps sludge metal(though that may be pushing it). Opinions, anyone? Rockgenre (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I dispute nothing that you are saying but my opinion is that the infobox should contain the single most identifiable genre for the band and all else belongs in the text with appropriate referencing. Add a second and a third, fourth, and fifth soon follow. J04n(talk page) 03:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to add too many other things in the infobox, but if Purp and Zep, bands just as heavy as Sabbath are also listed as hard rock too I don't see why Sabbath can't.Rockgenre (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, Sabbath is heavy metal, end of story. Who cares what other bands such as Purple and Zeppelin are classified as... they're different bands who really don't sound like Sab at all. There are similarities, but Sabbath was always much heavier.--Freshfighter9 (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "In my opinion, Sabbath is heavy metal, end of story" Have you listened to the songs I mentioned? A lot of Sabbath songs aren't metal. "Sabbath was always much heavier". I disagree. "Paranoid"'s intro even comes from "Dazed and Confused". Zeppelin at their heaviest("Immigrant Song", "Communication Breakdown", "Dazed and Confused", etc.) bit even be heavier than Sabbath. And Purple's early speed metal like "Highway Star" and "Fireball" again I consider just as heavy as Sabbath's sludgely, slower sound(not counting some of their faster numbers like "Symtom of the Universe", etc.) Sabbath should be classed as a hard rock band as well. Rockgenre (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. I guess then, since Garth Brooks covered a Kiss song, he must also be classified as Hard Rock. Or by your logic, since Sabbath did a song like "It's Alright", they could also be classified as a Pop band.--Freshfighter9 (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Covering a song has nothing to do with what I said. I said Sabbath "borrowed" a part of a Zeppelin song. I don't even think Sabbath were the heaviest band of their time to be honest. That honor I think would have to go to Blue Cheer or Budgie. "Sabbath did a song like "It's Alright", they could also be classified as a Pop band" Did you even read my whole first comment? Clearly you missed, "but we definately can't call them a soft rock band". One little song does not make a major difference. "Radio(I'm going Insane" was basically synthpop, but we can't call them a synthpop band. But the fact is that Sabbath do have several lite songs and a lot of plain and simple hard rock. To even all their work out I beleive we at least have to include hard rock in the infobox(though I know I won't get much support on calling them sludge metal). Rockgenre (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that traditional heavy metal should be added, since they were the first heavy metal band. Portillo (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a reliable source that says they are traditional heavy metal? If not including it in the article would be original research. J04n(talk page) 02:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Black Sabbath are definately NOT the first heavy metal band. Led Zep, Blue Cheer, etc. all had albums out before Sab. Hard rock as you all, already know should definately be added. Rockgenre (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources at the traditional metal article are "^ a b c d e f g h i j Heavy: The Story of Metal (2006)", "a b c d e f g h i j Metal: A Headbanger's Journey (2005)" and "a b Sharpe-Young, Garry (2007), p. 12". Portillo (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Those sources are used to say they are just heavy metal. Traditional heavy metal, means you are just heavy metal, plain and simple. You aren't thrash, death, prog, doom, sludge, hair, etc., you are just heavy metal. I've seen Headbanger's Journey and the chart for it can even be seen on on it's page hear and the category is "early metal". We have heavy metal in the infobox, which means traditional metal is already in the infobox. Traditional is just metal without any sub. Rockgenre (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

So would it be ok if i linked traditional heavy metal for ppl who wish to explore into it? Portillo (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no problem with that. Rockgenre (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think adding 'hard rock' right behind 'heavy metal' can't really do any harm. And I don't think their cover of "Warning" is not metal in any absolute sense. "Doom metal" might be alright as a genre tag, though I think it covers less Sabbath material than 'heavy metal' and 'hard rock.' 'Sludge metal' wouldn't work at all as a tag. Like grunge, it's one of those things which has been around for a good while in style, but wasn't really coined or considered as a genre until way later. (Albert Mond (talk) 15:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Albert, are you referring to the infobox or within the text of the article? J04n(talk page) 15:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Infobox. (Albert Mond (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC))
 * My opinion, which is nothing more than that, is that the single most defining genre for a band should be in the infobox, alone. Any other genres, if appropriately referenced by a WP:RS, belong in the body of the article. J04n(talk page) 22:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Black Sabbath most well-known as a heavy metal band, rather than a rock band? I'm sure we could go back and forth about this, but how might Rolling Stone Magazine describe them? Any ideas? --Akanksha (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to Akanksha, I assume that you are referring to the opening sentence. It was decided a while ago (you'll have to find the thread in the archives) that in the opening sentence the broad term 'rock' would be used and in the infobox 'heavy metal' would be used.  In the text of the article Sabbath's influence on heavy metal is highlighted, particularly in the 'Legacy' section.  It seems that nothing causes more disagreement around here as musical genres, so I appreciate you discussing it here rather than just editing.  If you want to reopen the discussion feel free, consensus can change, but if you want my two cents I prefer it the way it is now, but I'm only one editor. J04n(talk page) 00:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm also in favor of the first sentence calling them a rock band. Metal is a form of rock anyway, so it is 100 percent accurate to call them a rock band. RG (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

When is a band on hiatus?
It's been 3 years! 1968-present's a bit off! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.109.182.5 (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Until there is an official press release saying that they are no longer a band, they are a band. J04n(talk page) 01:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * errr.... so if they all die (4 original members, plus Wakeman, plus the 22 former members), and there is no official statement that they are no longer a band, they will continue to be a band till kingdom come? Hmmph. Anyway, they are all alive, so for the moment it does not matter how long it's been. Nunoni (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Genre: Part 3
Black Sabbath is also Doom Metal. Why don't we add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.132.195.108 (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for bringing this up here and not just adding it. I assume that you want to add it to the infobox, if that is true I would be against that.  If you scroll through this page and the archives you will see that someone feels that they are just about every genre, if we add one we will have to add them all.  If you are referring to having it in the text of the article (not the lead) and you have some decent reliable sources to support it, I say go for it. J04n(talk page) 22:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * While influencial to doom metal, I personally think it's overkill to call Sabbath a doom metal band. Pentagram were really the first group that we can undeniably call a doom metal band. Some could also make a fine argument that stoner rock or sludge metal(which I actually have) deserve to be in the box as well since you can find multiple sources pointing to them being the first in those subs, but perhaps its better to say they were nfluencial to it instead of really being doom metal. I agree with what JO4n said earlier that doom should be put in their influence section instead of the box, but I still think hard rock should be in the box. Rockgenre (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just added Sabbath's influence on doom metal in the "Legacy" section, no need to put it in the infobox. Though that same source refered to the band as hard rock, so I don't see why we can't include that in the box. Rockgenre (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ozzy Osbourne Solo Band Member Mistake
I have found a part of this article which appears to be a mistake. When Osbourne quit the band briefly in 1977 and was replaced by Dave Walker, he attempted to start a solo career. However, this article sites that he called upon "ex-Dirty Tricks members John Frazer-Binnie, Terry Horbury, and Andy Bierne." I have heard many of times that Osbourne actually got Barry "Baz" Dunnery, Dennis McCarten, and Frank Hall of Necromandus to play with him. This would make sense seeing as Tony Iommi managed Necromandus and Black Sabbath were good friends with them. I maybe mistake on Barry Dunnery's involvement, but I know that Necromandus members were apart of Ozzy's early solo effort.

The Necromandus Myspace page explaining their biography even mentions:

"As a postscript to their career the three remaining members were remembered by Ozzy Osborne when he temporarily left Sabbath and he invited them to back him in rehearsals of new material which would eventually become "Blizzard of Ozz", but he eventually rejoined Sabbath."

Here is the link: http://www.myspace.com/necromandusband

Someone please look into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.70.255 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Influence
I think more of Black Sabbath's influence could be discussed in depth and the impact they had.

If anything I think that they're influence section is only touching on how much they influenced Rock and Metal audiences, as well as Pop and other Progressive genres. I will add more information. I'll start by adding more bands that they influenced, spanning numerous genres.

I agree. But since I am not a good writer some one else should24.30.133.174 (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is such a good idea. See Talk:Pink Floyd for a full rationale. --John (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * John, I applaud t what you did. The next paragraph does a much better job of demonstrating their significance. I would be in favor of re-adding the bit about the Nativity in Black albums, particularly because they were both certified gold. The third paragraph about the 'other genres' is the one that really needs to be worked on now (not to mention the dreadful 'Since 2000' section). This article hasn't been receiving the same TLC that it once did. J04n(talk page) 15:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Polka Tulk name?
There's a slight edit war going on about the origin of this name (clothing shop vs. talcum powder). Unfortunately the references for that part of the article do not mention the origin of the name. Does anyone have a source for the origin (whatever it may be)? An internet search looks like people just quoting this article so who knows. Bfootdav (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed the bit about the origin of the name. If someone comes up with a good source then we can put it back in.  Till then we should leave it out.  Bfootdav (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Bfootdav . J04n(talk page) 23:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Actually it looks like it is from I am Ozzy, I dropped Flocksington a line as to how to properly cite it, let's show a little patience. J04n(talk page) 23:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can still agree with me! I found the source at Amazon (handy how they let you search books) and confirmed it.  Also prettied up the reference.  I think we got it all now? Bfootdav (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * lol, agree that I still agree with Bfootdav. J04n(talk page) 00:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As per Ozzy's book (pages 62 & 63 of the original publication), the talcum powder thing seems most viable, given the lack of other sources. 91.125.229.230 (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Tuning error
Three semi-tones down from standard tuning would be C#/Db, not C. However, i'm not entirely certain which of the two Iommi experimented with, so could someone find out for definite and correct either the tuning or the number of semi-tones down? 91.125.229.230 (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's 3 semi tones down, C#/Db. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.29.183 (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Conscience

 * I am loosing track of the "Rock,Heavy Metal-Band/Music" debate, do we have a common Conscience of what the page is supose to read, there has been so much vandals latley. Please if your signature is an IP addy please don't waste YOUR time in responding Thank You Mlpearc (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you use the Search function for the archives (up in the boxes at the top) you'll find a number of hits for Heavy Metal. I'm not convinced there's any point in a new thread on the topic - consensus at the moment at least seems to be that heavy metal is the way to go. Random name (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually saying that, why does it say "rock band" in the lead sentence? Shouldn't that say heavy metal when the infobox only says heavy metal? Random name (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that in the infobox Sabbath should be listed as a heavy metal band and in the opening sentence as a rock band. My rationale for the infobox is that this is how they are most universally referred to as.  My rationale for the lead is that it is the most general categorization.  For all other genres that they have been classified as or influenced, as cited in reliable sources, should be incorporated into the body of the article.  At one point this was the consensus, but consensus can change and I realize that there are a number of newer contributors to this page whose opinions are all welcome. I must also say that the opinions of IP editors should and will be considered. J04n(talk page) 19:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you both Mlpearc (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to state my opinion that they should be listed as an "English Heavy Metal band" in the opening sentence. Every single Black Sabbath album on wikipedia is listed as a Metal album; even Seventh Star, which is barely metal at all. Theres no real reason to call them a rock group when all there albums are clearly metal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.136.95 (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hiatus, 2009?
Classic Sabbath last did something in 2006, when they played a few award ceremonies. Now, Black Sabbath: The Dio Years was put out in 2007 and featured 3 new recordings by Black Sabbath (one of them released as a Black Sabbath single); it may have not been the Black Sabbath line-up that is "officially" Sabbath but it was still an official Sabbath release of new recordings.

The hiatus therefore should either be when Black Sabbath ground to a hault in 2006, or when the "The Dio Years" team switched to the Heaven & Hell name in 2007 (or was it right at the end of 2006 they started to announce tour dates?). Either way, 2006 or 7 they went on hiatus. Not 09.

2009 was probably when they first admitted the band weren't a band anymore, but that doesn't mean much.

(The Elfoid (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC))

Adam Wakeman
"Adam Wakeman Active: 2004–present Instruments: keyboards Release contributions: none " This is taken from the list of all black sabbath members; why isn't he credited as an actual member in the main page? I added him and it got deleted... is he not member any more (I dont know that much about this band, just asking)" I think this should be revised Manoalorts (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have a link to Sabbath or an official Sabbath page crediting him as an official member? (Albert Mond (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC))

Is a band
Is it called "is a band" or "are a band"? "Are a band" sounds really weird to me. - 83.108.208.37 (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Convention is generally that US bands are singular, and UK bands are plural. There are exceptions, however. Rodhull  andemu  21:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that is does sound weird Eragon123123 (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC) 2-1 for changing it! Im doing it! Eragon123123 (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I've changed it back to reflect longstanding consensus on describing UK bands. I suggest that if you think this should be changed after all these years, discuss it first. Rodhull  andemu  21:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * British bands take the plural, check under "band names" in the Guardian newspaper MOS . Saying "Black Sabbath is" sounds pretty weird over here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should keep it plural, as though there were some American members, like RJDio and Eric Singer, the members were primarily English. BlackSabbath1996 (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Site in external links
The page "external links" has http://www.blacksabbath.com/ as "official site", which it is not. It has never been recognised as official by Tony Iommi in any statement or anywhere in that site itself, who, pending a judicial decision to state otherwise, still owns the brand.

Anyone wishing to reinstate it as "official" needs to come with proof of matter that it is official.

Nunoni (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that the site is official or not, but it has now been relabeled as a fan site, is there proof of that? Frankly the site is useless, there is no information on it, I say just delete it. J04n(talk page) 10:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What was stated as "official" site is an Ozzy-camp supported site; it never had any info. It's also actually difficult to prove it is made by the Ozzy camp. It is however impossible to prove it is official. I don't see a problem to let it stay, perhaps with description something like "a Black Sabbath related site", which is certainly true. The second site has loads of info on all eras (it is quite era-neutral, even if the site owner also works for Iommi and Butler on their own sites), and it is assumedly "fan-based". I put it in exactly because it has extremely much information on all things Sabbath. Nunoni (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Heaven & Hell is Black Sabbath

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * The result was don't merge. There's an evident strong consensus that merging these articles is not a good idea, for a variety of reasons. ~ mazca  talk 21:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that the Heaven & Hell article should be merged with the Black Sabbath article because as it is stated in the first part of the Sabbath article, the exact lineup of Heaven & Hell was Black Sabbath for a few years and albums. Also, their set comprised of mostly (if not entirely) Sabbath songs. The touring name was only changed to avoid confusion with the Classic Sabbath lineup. Even Dio said that it was Black Sabbath (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZeQyJS6N0U). If there was one different member (such as having a different drummer that had not worked with Sabbath before, or even one that did but not with Dio, Iommi & Butler together) I would agree that the articles should be left separate. Having the articles separate is redundant. 24.2.148.187 (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. This is clearly against the wishes of the artists involved, who strictly separate the two bands.  I disagree that Heaven and Hell is/was a 'touring name', since the band recorded and released studio and live albums under the name.  As solo artists are granted their own articles despite touring heavily behind material popularized by their former groups, so too should Heaven and Hell have their own, separate article.  Their re-branding themselves makes clear their intention to view the project as a bifurcation from Sabbath.  Colinclarksmith (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose: I couldn't agree with Colinclarksmith more. J04n(talk page) 00:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I too agree with Colinclarksmith. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes but the difference with the solo artists is that they aren't touring with the EXACT SAME band they were with. And the band only changed their name to differenciate the two lineups. As stated in the interview posted above, at least part of the band saw themselves as a different version of the same band. I'm not saying we should merge them and ignore the name change but that the section about Heaven & Hell doesn't need its own article and since it is the same band as the Dio lineup of Black Sabbath, in membership and songs, it can exist within the Sabbath article. The Heaven and Hell article (as well as the Heaven & Hell disambiguation page) make it seem like a Black Sabbath spin-off that features a few former Sabbath members. It is a Black Sabbath reunion band with members from the Dio era.24.2.148.187 (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Occam's Razor suggests that if it had been Black Sabbath, they would have called it that; but they didn't, recognising something of a difference, and no argument can override that. They choose their label; we do not. End of. Rodhull  andemu  01:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose my point is that the membership, setlist and genre aren't the deciding factor regarding who a band "is" - the branding (i.e., band name) decides. Some groups (Napalm Death, Mayhem) have no original members and yet are assimilated under a single umbrella due to the branding; other groups (The Yardbirds into Led Zeppelin) retain a lineup yet rename themselves to split their career as they see fit.  Articles should be written in accordance with this objective view towards history.  I'm sure some people would want to break the post-Ozzy era of Black Sabbath into a separate history, claiming it's "is not" Sabbath in the same way you are claiming that Heaven and Hell "is" (I am not one of these people, by the way.)  But I agree with Rodhullandemu that these sorts of value judgments aren't ours to make - the branding makes the ultimate decision.  Colinclarksmith (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose The band is called Heaven And Hell, they toured under that name, they released albums under that name, if Iommi wanted them to be called Black Sabbath, he would have done so. 78.86.92.151 (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose – Colin and Rod sum it up quite well, in fact. – B.hotep •talk• 07:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

strongly oppose HEAVEN AND HELL IS NOT BLACK SABBATH. THE MUSIC IS WAY DIFFERENT, AND TONY IOMMI NAMED THEM HEAVEN AND HELL FOR A REASON. BlackSabbath1996 (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me like we can close the book on this one, right? I'll give it a day or two more and remove the merge proposal if nothing changes. On second thought, I think there's an archival process that such debates need to undergo, and I don't really know how any of that works, so maybe someone else should take on the job of removing the tag in a day or two.  Colinclarksmith (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Alright, it seems that the articles shouldn't be merged since they are using a diferent name. But I do think tht the link to Heaven & Hell should be added to Black Sabbath's aka's since they are the exact same band by membership and material. Even in trhe Heaven & Hell article there are albums "recorded as Black Sabbath" in the discography section.24.34.56.93 (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the article reflects the relationship well as it is. There is an entire, lengthy section on Heaven and Hell in the Sabbath article in addition to the Heaven and Hell article itself.  The "also known as" section of the infobox is for bands who change their name at the beginning of their career or who occasionally perform under different names for legal or personal reasons (e.g., to play smaller venues), not groups that start offshoots.  We've already determined that neither membership nor material connects two bands (think Yardbirds/Led Zeppelin and solo artists respectively), so the "exact same" claim doesn't apply.  Colinclarksmith (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Another point to make is that Tony Iommi intentionally froze Black Sabbath under the classic moniker after their admission to various Halls of Fame and opted to rename the Iommi/Dio/Butler/Appice lineup, so moving Heaven and Hell into the 'aka' section is implying the two are the same entity and thus going directly against his wishes. Colinclarksmith (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Stonehenge - Spinal Tap inspiration
Contrary to a popular belief (and to the belief of Black Sabbath members themselves) the Stonehenge stage setting of the 1983 tour could not have been an inspiration for the This Is Spinal Tap film. The stonehenge sequence features already in the 23-minute demo "Spinal Tap - The Final Tour", which was made in 1982 (according to "This Is Spinal Tap - The Official Companion" book, Bloomsbury, 2000, ISBN 0 7475 5284 3) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4ctmam (talk • contribs) 19:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Jethro Tull
Iommi left "Earth" in December '69 and returned in January '69. So he is a time traveller, right? The mind boggles... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.128.144 (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Result of a sneaky change a couple of weeks ago. Thanks for pointing it out. – B.hotep •talk• 19:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

GOCE
Mlpearc  powwow  16:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All redirected & disambiguation links fixed.

1969 Demo
Can we add the 1969 demo to the chronology. I can help you guys put info on it...I know all about it!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by XLAxMetallica (talk • contribs) 00:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Ok thanks For responding Wiki...wow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XLAxMetallica (talk • contribs) 22:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Which chronology do you mean? It does not belong in the discography section of the main article, since this is only for official studio albums.  I think it may fit best in the "unofficial" section of the Black Sabbath discography article.  You might find room for it in the prose section of the main Black Sabbath article, i.e. in the History section; just make sure to cite any additions you make, especially in the case of the latter.  Cheers, Colinclarksmith (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

XLAxMetallica (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC) But it isn't unofficial, the bands management told them to make the demo. It would be like the equivalent of Exodus' 1982 demo, it wasn't a big hit or anything at the time, but it is on the chronology that you click on and it goes through the studio, live, and EP albums according to the year it was released. The reason i brought this up is because it was highly significant to Black Sabbath's beginnings. Please consider this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XLAxMetallica (talk • contribs) 22:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Somebody please respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.183.34.16 (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Should Gerry Woodruffe be Jezz Woodroffe?
The article refers to Gerry Woodruffe playing with Black Sabbath. Should this be Jezz Woodroffe? This is the name by which he was known at the Woodroffe's music shop and is referred to on other sites e.g.:

http://www.black-sabbath.com/personnel/woodroffe.html http://www.sallyhope.co.uk/ http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/b/Birmingham.htm

He is referred to as Gerald Woodruffe on this page:

http://www.black-sabbath.com/discog/sabotage.html

MrRatty (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not too familiar with this member but, I would agree that Gerry "Jezz" Woodroffe would be appropriate. Mlpearc   powwow  10:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Worldwide sales
Well the thing that the band has sold over 70 million copies worldwide is wrong in fact they sold only 50 million copies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayerfana (talk • contribs) 12:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Genres: PLEASE READ
Sabbath are heavy metal for the most part, we can all agree. But i saw that Allmusic listed their first 4 albums as hard rock as well, could you check that out please. And for the genre on their main page, you cannot seriously just call them heavy metal, not every song they play is metal, nor are they as repetetive as some idiots believe them to be. Songs like Planet Caravan (psychedelic), Solitude, It's Alright, Changes, and others are not even close to it. Also classical bits like Orchid, Laguna Sunrise, and Fluff are far from it as well. They are much more diverse than people say so can we take a look at the genres please?74.183.34.16 (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It's also Doom metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.29.183 (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No its not....Now can somebody please respond!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.183.34.16 (talk) 01:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever anybody may think, genres are not our personal preferences; they depend on reliable sources. So unless such a source describes them as "doom metal", or "gay pop", we do not add it, despite our personal preferences. Rodhull  andemu
 * Agree with Rodhullandemu, and to take the point a bit further; not every musical style a band employs during the span of their career needs to be in the infobox. There is a 'Musical style' section of this article. If you have some WP:reliable sources detailing Sabbath's music as X put together a few sentences and source them. The infobox should be summarizing the article not introducing new material, Let's build the article not the infobox. J04n(talk page) 02:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok this is getting old. I mentioned this once before, and you guys tell me to get a reliable source such as allmusic. I go to allmusic with proof that they are also hard rock (even though its pretty friggin obvious they are i don't know why you guys just don't add it), and then you tell me "oh well is not about personal prefferences... When did I say it was a prefference? I have proof from a reliable source! I mean yeah i get what you are saying about doom metal, because they are not doom at all, but hard rock? Definately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.183.34.16 (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

First Album Recording
Well the thing about being signed to philips records in December of 1969 is false. How is that possible if they recorded the album in a single session in November 1969? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.183.34.16 (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)