V-man
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2009
- Messages
- 4,377
- Reaction score
- 3,422
Time for an unoriginal rehash, maybe with a twist. A discussion, of Sabbath vs Sabbath, Ozzy, vs Dio (the bands), and Ozzy vs Dio (the men). My $0.02 in TL;DR form - Ozzy > Dio in all band formats, but Dio destroys Ozzy otherwise.
Interested in seeing what you think and why.
Sabbath
I see a number of ppl preferring Dio-era, and I get it if that was what one was raised on in High School or something, but it is otherwise no contest AFAIC. There are complete A-Side to B-Side Ozzy-era albumS where every song is a hit or is plain un-skippable on the stereo. Sabbath was a tired band by the time Dio came on, and he was a complete vitamin/steroid shot in the arm, but there are no Dio-era albums that were track-to-track hits (nor were there any in latter Ozzy-era after Sabotage). In fairness, the first two Dio-era albums roundly defeat the last two Ozzy-era (more apples-apples comparison in terms of band’s maturity and overall energy), but the best Dio-era rarely outdid the best Ozzy era, either in greatest hits or greatest albums.
Song strength was also an issue, where much of the reliance fell more on RJD’s amazing vocals. Tailoring those same albums to Ozzy’s vocals with him singing instead of DIO and you can really imagine how they are far less exciting/worthwhile songs. I’d say not (just) because RJD is vocally superior, but the songd that aren’t ”greatest hits” canon are merely “strong rockers” rather than “legendary tunes”. Also the greatest hits are few and far between, rarely overtaking the best of Ozzy-era greatest hits. That said, Heaven and Hell (the song) is a viable competitor as one of Sabbath’s best 3 songs ever… certainly in the top 5.
The eras’ sounds seems to me much like a 2203/2555 comparison. The former is lower gain, but more gritty, raw and aggressive, whereas the latter is higher gain and more refined but less ballsy, and though much loved, is less preferable to the former. Sabbath sound is fucking Sabbath to 1975. By 1980, it’s an excellent hard rock precursor to iron maiden and 80s priest, but the produced sound seems indistinct from most of what was produced for the next half decade.
Solo Acts
Dio should have crushed Ozzy here, but for the talent Ozzy acquired. There simply is no touching RR (and JEL was no slouch either). This is coming from an absolute fan of Vivian Campbell, who was IMO the greatest NWOBHM guitarist out there (Sweet Savage) second perhaps to the likes of Priest’s Glenn Tipton. BOTH have churned out legendary albums that inconsistently showcased absolute rock anthems along side fan (only) favorites that paled in comparison to the greatest hits of the albums. I wager the RR albums, particularly Blizzard had a little more track-to-track consistency. Either way, the gap between which was better narrows considerably here compared to Sabbath eras.
Musicians
I can’t imagine this being any contest. Ronnie was a better vocalist at every level compared to Ozzy. You could somehow dislike literally everything he did, and still have to concede he is an immensely talented singer. Ozzy OTH is one of those top 5 rock vocalists like Axl where you either love the character (the individual / voice): or you just hate Ozzy. Ronnie could weave his voice into the song tapestry as its own strong melody. Ozzy more often than not was stuck singing the rhythm if not the riff, unable to meander artistically like Dio mastered. My understanding was that Ozzy worked in the (simpler) vocal melodies, but rarely/never wrote lyrics. Dio, OTOH was capable of both.
Interested in seeing what you think and why.
Sabbath
I see a number of ppl preferring Dio-era, and I get it if that was what one was raised on in High School or something, but it is otherwise no contest AFAIC. There are complete A-Side to B-Side Ozzy-era albumS where every song is a hit or is plain un-skippable on the stereo. Sabbath was a tired band by the time Dio came on, and he was a complete vitamin/steroid shot in the arm, but there are no Dio-era albums that were track-to-track hits (nor were there any in latter Ozzy-era after Sabotage). In fairness, the first two Dio-era albums roundly defeat the last two Ozzy-era (more apples-apples comparison in terms of band’s maturity and overall energy), but the best Dio-era rarely outdid the best Ozzy era, either in greatest hits or greatest albums.
Song strength was also an issue, where much of the reliance fell more on RJD’s amazing vocals. Tailoring those same albums to Ozzy’s vocals with him singing instead of DIO and you can really imagine how they are far less exciting/worthwhile songs. I’d say not (just) because RJD is vocally superior, but the songd that aren’t ”greatest hits” canon are merely “strong rockers” rather than “legendary tunes”. Also the greatest hits are few and far between, rarely overtaking the best of Ozzy-era greatest hits. That said, Heaven and Hell (the song) is a viable competitor as one of Sabbath’s best 3 songs ever… certainly in the top 5.
The eras’ sounds seems to me much like a 2203/2555 comparison. The former is lower gain, but more gritty, raw and aggressive, whereas the latter is higher gain and more refined but less ballsy, and though much loved, is less preferable to the former. Sabbath sound is fucking Sabbath to 1975. By 1980, it’s an excellent hard rock precursor to iron maiden and 80s priest, but the produced sound seems indistinct from most of what was produced for the next half decade.
Solo Acts
Dio should have crushed Ozzy here, but for the talent Ozzy acquired. There simply is no touching RR (and JEL was no slouch either). This is coming from an absolute fan of Vivian Campbell, who was IMO the greatest NWOBHM guitarist out there (Sweet Savage) second perhaps to the likes of Priest’s Glenn Tipton. BOTH have churned out legendary albums that inconsistently showcased absolute rock anthems along side fan (only) favorites that paled in comparison to the greatest hits of the albums. I wager the RR albums, particularly Blizzard had a little more track-to-track consistency. Either way, the gap between which was better narrows considerably here compared to Sabbath eras.
Musicians
I can’t imagine this being any contest. Ronnie was a better vocalist at every level compared to Ozzy. You could somehow dislike literally everything he did, and still have to concede he is an immensely talented singer. Ozzy OTH is one of those top 5 rock vocalists like Axl where you either love the character (the individual / voice): or you just hate Ozzy. Ronnie could weave his voice into the song tapestry as its own strong melody. Ozzy more often than not was stuck singing the rhythm if not the riff, unable to meander artistically like Dio mastered. My understanding was that Ozzy worked in the (simpler) vocal melodies, but rarely/never wrote lyrics. Dio, OTOH was capable of both.