Talk:Black Sabbath

Talk archives:
*Archive One
*Archive Two
*Archive Three
*Archive Four

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. --Rodhullandemu 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)

Genre

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)

• 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. --Rodhullandemu 20:46, 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)

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. --Rodhullandemu 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|c 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)

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|c 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|c 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)

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. Rodhullandemu 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)

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. Rodhullandemu 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)