Talk:Blizzard of Ozz

untitled
Inconsistency in Royalties dispute

It seems to me that there is a touch of POV on the royalties issue:

Daisley and Kerslake deny the allegations of "abusive behaviour" and continue to battle for royalties owed them for their work on Blizzard of Ozz

This presumes that Daisley and Kerslake are correct in their royalties claims. Since the dispute also appears to be ongoing, I am curious why Daisley's and Kerslake's perspective is accepted. Is there a strong consensus outside wikipedia that their claims are correct? If so, it might be more constructive to cite such commentary rather than speak for them.Blaimjos (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

it might be worth looking through all those one-star Amazon reviews for both Blizzard and Diary for verification; you could look at Bob Daisley's own website but the reviews on Amazon's site certainly will illustrate how much of a point he and Lee Kerslake had. The only reason those 2002 records came out was in case they were successful and won their case, with reworked versions omitting their parts the Osbournes didn't have to pay performance royalties at all. However now that the ruling came in favour of the Osbournes (unfairly IMO, but that's not part of this discussion) there is no longer any need to keep those false issues out, they can reissue the original performances and still not cough up a bean to Daisley/Kerslake. It is however, an admission that those 2002 issues were bogus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.13.221 (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Heavy Metal
Are you sure this album isn't hard rock? It sounds way more hard rock to me than metal... MarthsBullet (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

you're judging it by today's definition of 'heavy metal' - in 1979 there wasn't all the umpteen billion subgenres there are now (thanks a bunch Kerrang - not!) and basically what you consider mere 'hard rock' now was actually considered 'metal' back then. You'd have to say the same thing about a load of other classic Metal albums if you're revising the definition to fit today's 'rules' on what is and isn't metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.13.221 (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

All of Ozzy Osbourne's material is clearly heavy metal. I don't sense any hard rock elements. Hard rock is more like Heart, simpler stuff. Ozzy is heavy metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iron Wizard13 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Release date unclear
In the second paragraph, it sounds like the release date of the 2002 rerecording was 2011, which doesn't make sense. What was being released in 2011? Tdimhcs (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

BPI release date versus Ozzy.com date
The BPI website says the album was released on 12 Sept 1980. The Official Charts website says the album first charted on 20 Sept 1980. These two dates come from very reliable sources, and they make sense chronologically.

Ozzy.com says the album was released on 20 Sept 1980, which is impossible because it charted that same day. Albums must first hit the retail sector and be purchased before they chart; the process takes a week or so at the fastest. Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, we must conclude that the Ozzy.com website is wrong about release date. They probably confused release date with first chart date, which is a fairly common mistake.

Note that Ozzy.com gave only the release year in October 2005 and in January 2006, before the May 2006 date when Wikipedia first displayed the incorrect date of 20 Sept. After May 2006, Ozzy.com eventually copied the wrong date from Wikipedia, which is a case of Citogenesis—a form of circular reporting.

As always when getting to the root of these things, the official chart and certification websites are preferred. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)