Who’s band when they change their sound so much they basically fall into obscurity after Ozzy leaves?
Dio was a shit front man and his presence lost fans immediately. That they hung in for three more albums was valiant but pointless. Dragging out the death of the band over the next several decades because their sound was so good without Ozzy.
And had Charlie “fired” Mick, the same fate would have befallen the rolling stones as did Sabbath. You could have all sound you want yet without the charisma you had nothing.
It was a joke based on the stereotype of singers and their ego. There are plenty of other stereotypes about instrumentalists, such as bass players being simple, lead guitarrist that find everything else support for solos, drummers being brutes, keyboardists being music theorists and so on. I thought you’d recognize it but alas.
But sure. You’re using hypotheticals for arguments that you think is proof when presented with historical evidence that the frontman was one job of the band and not the entire act. There isn’t really much to discuss against something like that. I could invent my own alternative history too. But why.
And it’s not very nice to call the rest of the musicians in the band irrelevant and replaceable.
Never once suggested the front man was the entire act. I used a word that you took offence to, “His”, which was simply used to refer to the band that Ozzy was a part of not that he “owned” the band. Then I stated my position and defended it. One that is quite valid and accurate for the band and time period. That’s generally how discussion works. I didn’t make up any alternative history. Without Ozzy Sabbath would not have been what they were. Proven by their lack of success following his departure.
To each their own I suppose, but why.
Edit: damn you certainly have a way of putting words in others mouths. Try stay on track.
I don’t even understand what you are arguing any more because it seems to me that you are full of contradiction. On one hand it is the band of the front man band because “that is how it was”, but on the other hand you never said so. I say that there is more to a band than the front man, including the initial comment that Ozzy was recruited because others had the musical vision for it. You maintain the position that it is all the front man, giving example how you dislike what Black Sabbath became post Ozzy, disregarding that Ozzy would not be what he was without the band that brought him up to fame. When I presented a well known and here fact checked case of a front man vs “the band” controversy from close enough the same generation of rock music, you made up an alternative history about Rolling Stones and avoiding the topical discussion about the front man status.
Hence the joke about the singer which I was fit because this would be the position that a singer would hold, though I agree it was unnecessary with the secondary comment of mine that came from frustration from the stated above.
I don’t think it is a far leap though that the sum of this implies that the rest of the band members are irrelevant and replaceable, and my only argument is really that they are not and that it is a mistake to argue that they were because of how you subjectively may perceive or have perceived rock acts as audience back in the day.
Ozzy made it “his band”. That’s what front men did then. The sound came.from the band. The recognition came from the front man. In this case Ozzy.
Who’s band was it when they fired Ozzy?
Edit: about the front man status of the band - https://www.noise11.com/news/fact-check-did-charlie-watts-say-to-mick-jagger-youre-my-fucking-singer-20210828
Who’s band when they change their sound so much they basically fall into obscurity after Ozzy leaves?
Dio was a shit front man and his presence lost fans immediately. That they hung in for three more albums was valiant but pointless. Dragging out the death of the band over the next several decades because their sound was so good without Ozzy.
And had Charlie “fired” Mick, the same fate would have befallen the rolling stones as did Sabbath. You could have all sound you want yet without the charisma you had nothing.
Are you by any chance a singer in a band that still hasn’t caught a break because of external reasons?
Why must it always turn into personal attacks when people realize that their point is actually pointless?
It was a joke based on the stereotype of singers and their ego. There are plenty of other stereotypes about instrumentalists, such as bass players being simple, lead guitarrist that find everything else support for solos, drummers being brutes, keyboardists being music theorists and so on. I thought you’d recognize it but alas.
But sure. You’re using hypotheticals for arguments that you think is proof when presented with historical evidence that the frontman was one job of the band and not the entire act. There isn’t really much to discuss against something like that. I could invent my own alternative history too. But why.
And it’s not very nice to call the rest of the musicians in the band irrelevant and replaceable.
Edit: clarifications
Never once suggested the front man was the entire act. I used a word that you took offence to, “His”, which was simply used to refer to the band that Ozzy was a part of not that he “owned” the band. Then I stated my position and defended it. One that is quite valid and accurate for the band and time period. That’s generally how discussion works. I didn’t make up any alternative history. Without Ozzy Sabbath would not have been what they were. Proven by their lack of success following his departure.
To each their own I suppose, but why.
Edit: damn you certainly have a way of putting words in others mouths. Try stay on track.
I don’t even understand what you are arguing any more because it seems to me that you are full of contradiction. On one hand it is the band of the front man band because “that is how it was”, but on the other hand you never said so. I say that there is more to a band than the front man, including the initial comment that Ozzy was recruited because others had the musical vision for it. You maintain the position that it is all the front man, giving example how you dislike what Black Sabbath became post Ozzy, disregarding that Ozzy would not be what he was without the band that brought him up to fame. When I presented a well known and here fact checked case of a front man vs “the band” controversy from close enough the same generation of rock music, you made up an alternative history about Rolling Stones and avoiding the topical discussion about the front man status.
Hence the joke about the singer which I was fit because this would be the position that a singer would hold, though I agree it was unnecessary with the secondary comment of mine that came from frustration from the stated above.
I don’t think it is a far leap though that the sum of this implies that the rest of the band members are irrelevant and replaceable, and my only argument is really that they are not and that it is a mistake to argue that they were because of how you subjectively may perceive or have perceived rock acts as audience back in the day.