Talk:Black Sabbath

Genres 1

Black Sabbath is also Doom Metal! It's a genre that they actually created..it's not like death or black metal..it's not about dead things! Many people can't make the difference between these 3 types of metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.162.80 (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source for this? What do Allmusic say, for example? Sure, some of their earliest stuff was similar to Doom Metal, but we can't apply a genre based on our own opinions. Rodhullandemu 21:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Doom Metal article says so..and if it's on wikipedia..By the way, I think allmusic is rubbish! I read so many stupid things on that site! Like Green Day being sound inffluenced by Nirvana..That's why I don't think Allmusic is a good source..didn't found mistakes on the Black Sabbath article yet but.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.71.91.63 (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Following the trail, Doom Metal led me to Allmusic, which describes Doom Metal as "inspired by" Black Sabbath, but that doesn't mean Sabbath "were" Doom Metal, because the genre didn't exist at the time. More so, the Allmusic article for Sabbath doesn't even mention Doom Metal. And "being on Wikipedia" isn't a reliable source becase we merely cite what others have written. What does Kerrang! say? Rodhullandemu 21:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm..didn't find anything about that on kerrang, so i give up..I don't win anything if I'm right anyway..--84.208.162.80 (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing isn't about winning or losing, it's about getting the encyclopedia right. Don't be disheartened. Rodhullandemu 17:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Sabbath is NOT doom metal at all. Sorry man —Preceding unsigned comment added by XLAxMetallica (talk • contribs) 22:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Black Sabbath is also Doom metal.Just because there was no term for the genre at the time Black Sabbath first played doom metal, it doesn't mean that they didn't play it.Also if you read the definition of Doom metal and then listen to Into the Void (Black Sabbath song) you will see that there is a perfect match and also at rateyourmusic.com it describes it as doom metal (http://rateyourmusic.com/release/single/black_sabbath/into_the_void___black_sabbath/ ).That's only an example, there are many Black Sabbath songs that are doom metal, like Black Sabbath and Electric Funeral —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkrai21 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"Black Sabbath are an English heavy metal band,... " they did not know that back then themselves - they started it :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.97.64 (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2011 (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. Rodhullandemu

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)

Genres

I think that the genres in the infobox should be heavy metal, doom metal, hard rock, and blues-rock. If you look at the articles on each of the original band members, those are the genres that are listed in the infoboxes. --John of Lancaster (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The genres in the individual Sabbath members' infoboxes obviously includes their solo work and other work outside Black Sabbath. That they have dabbled in other genres does not infer that Sabbath themselves have. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I must say that I am against changing the infobox. If you can find reliable sources describing them being any of these other genres, not just the style list in Allmusic, by all means add it to the text of the article but lets try to keep the infobox clutter free. The individual band members pages are pretty much a mess and this is a good article. J04n(talk page) 22:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. --John of Lancaster (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree that these genres should be included in the infobox.Of course Black Sabbath didn't play ONLY Heavy metal. They were also Doom metal, Hard rock and Blues rock. I have listened to Black Sabbath for a lot of time and I have read many articles and books about them, which make me sure that the genres mentioned above must be included in the infobox. Just because we can't find something in the internet this doesn't mean that it's not true, and also, what makes a source "reliable"? I know that everyone will answer "go to the wikipedia page with the definition of reliable sources", but can you always be sure about something? To conclude, I consider wikipedia a reliable source and in wikipedia I've found in many articles that Black Sabbath were more than just Heavy metal. I don't have somrthing to win for this change, it's just about the article being right and precise for those who really want to learn about the band. --Darkrai21 16:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that that metal is the only style they play, I'm just arguing against putting other genres in the infobox. The infobox should be a synopsis of the article. Also, I'm certainly not arging against using books as sources. J04n(talk page) 20:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also, as J04n says, the infobox aims for generality, so what we don't do is list every genre that a band has played. Sabbath were all of the genres you mention, plus a few more. But heavy metal covers all bases, and satisfies the purposes that the infobox is designed for. The article text can and does touch on the other genres associated with the band. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that heavy metal covers all bases. Also, in infoboxes of other bands, most of the time, there are 2 or more genres. So my point is, why not Black Sabbath? --Darkrai21 14:24, 7 May 2011

Doom metal is a subgenre of heavy metal, so that base is covered. How much of the band's output is blues-rock or other subgenres? Not much. It doesn't matter at all about other articles - this is a good article and that's because of things like having sensible infobox content. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that doom metal is a subgenre of heavy metal doesn't make it omittable because the term describes a specific genre. Also, much of the early work of Black Sabbath is Hard rock and Blues rock and that's why I consider it important to be included in the infobox. --Darkrai21

Opening statement

This is nitpicking, but why is Black Sabbath described as a Rock band in the opening statement? Let's take a look at opening statements of their albums, shall we?

Black Sabbath is the debut studio album by English heavy metal band Black Sabbath.

Paranoid is the second studio album by English heavy metal band Black Sabbath.

Master of Reality is the third album by the British heavy metal band Black Sabbath, released in July 1971.

Black Sabbath Vol. 4 (often shortened to Volume 4) is the fourth album by the British heavy metal band Black Sabbath, released in September 1972.

...this pattern repeats across almost all of their 18 albums, those that don't simply don't include a genre in its opening sentence. So either the editor who contended to include "rock" in the band's opening statement follow suit with all of their albums, or step down and change the statement on the band's page from "rock" to "heavy metal". Keep in mind that wikipedia articles should benefit from the most general available(and sourced) descriptions, rather than broad terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.118.4 (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• The decision was made to use the broadest term in the opening sentence. Since heavy metal is a subgenre of rock music it was decided to use that. The genres in the infobox and opening sentence were being constantly changed so it was decided to go with their most recognizable genre, heavy metal, in the infobox, and broadest, rock, in the opening sentence. The body of the article would then be the place to talk about their influences on the many subgenres that their music has resembled over the years. J04n(talk page) 11:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Years active

In 1968 the members were calling themselves Earth, they did not change the name to Black Sabbath until 1969. Comments ? Mlpearc powwow 20:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Reunion 1997-2006

this page is for sabbath, this section is for 1997-2006, so why is the picture in this section of Ozzy on stage from his SOLO tour in 2007? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.214.250.194 (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Rumors of reunion

Well, in my opinion that is exactly what it is until their official website or a member is quoted affirming it so. Mlpearc powwow 00:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.metaltalk.net/news/2010882.php <- what about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.34.179 (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• I do not believe that would pass for a reliable source. J04n(talk page) 11:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2011/08/16/black-sabbath-to-reform-with-original-line-up-and-new-studio-album-97319-29245431/ Perhaps this is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.148.79 (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.iommi.com/news.php?story=130 Claims of the reunion have officially been dismissed by Iommi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.197.209 (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE do not add the "Rumor" of a reunion, it has be verified by Iommi as just that "A Rumor" on his website (see link above). Mlpearc powwow 21:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

But the band IS reuniting, check out this link http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2011/08/16/black-sabbath-to-reform-with-original-line-up-and-new-studio-album-97319-29245431/ so it might be added to the article. --Milosppf (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Tony Iommi has refuted that story on his official site. J04n(talk page) 10:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

august 16th not 17th — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.214.250.194 (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Black Sabbath is OFFICIALLY back according to many vaild sources as of today including: http://www.billboard.com/news/black-sabbath-reuniting-for-new-album-tour-1005511372.story#/news/black-sabbath-reuniting-for-new-album-tour-1005511372.story, as well as their official website stating this. They will be recording a new album and touring in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.99.112.194 (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, the portion of this article describing the reunion needs to be updated to fit the present tense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.99.112.194 (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and articles should be written from a historical perspective. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

According to Tony Iommi's official website, the reunion is a go. Source: http://www.iommi.com/index.php?story=144 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.70.249 (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Genre of Black Sabbath

IMHO, since the term "Heavy Metal" did not exist when Black Sabbath started to create music, the all encompassing term coined by Bill Ward "Downer Rock" is the most appropriate term for the genre of music Black Sabbath has since created until before 1978. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.80.160 (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The term downer rock is really an etymological footnote. Heavy metal is by far the most commonly used and recognised term.--SabreBD (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Bill Ward Considering not Participating in the Reunion

Source: http://www.billward.com/2012/02/statement-on-black-sabbath-album-tour/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.148.79 (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Further evidence provided by Black Sabbaths official website suggests that Bill Ward will possibly not be participating. The band released a statement claiming:

"We were saddened to hear yesterday via Facebook that Bill declined publicly to participate in our current Black Sabbath plans...we have no choice but to continue recording without him although our door is always open... We are still in the UK with Tony. Writing and recording the new album and on a roll... See you at Download!!!"

Source: http://www.blacksabbath.com/ (Under recording update 2/3/2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.99.112.194 (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Genre

"Heavy Metal" simply isn't enough to describe early Black Sabbath. According to this, they originally formed as a blues-rock band, and according to this, VH1 calls them "Hard Rock." I think that's more than enough evidence that either "blues-rock" or "hark rock" need to be added to the genre section. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 23:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• I assume that you want to add to the infobox because these other genres/subgenres are mentioned in the article. This comes up frequently on this page, and the problem is that bands with long histories can be categorized under many different heading, in this case, the ones you mentioned plus, doom metal, stoner rock, gothic metal and others are often brought up. To keep things under control it has been decided that it would say 'Heavy Metal' in the infobox (because there are the most sources calling them that) and 'Rock' in the opening sentence, because all of the other genres are subgenres of Rock. The 'Formation and early days (1968–1969)' section of the article talks of their blues origins and other styles/genres are described in the 'Musical style', 'Legacy', and 'Influence and innovation' sections of the article. J04n(talk page) 01:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Music Genome Project

According to Pandora's Music Genome Project, several of Black Sabbath's songs are "hard rock" or "acid rock". AmericanLeMans (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• I assume you are making this point because you wish to add these genres/subgenres to the infobox. Long-term consensus on this page has been to only have 'heavy metal' in the infobox and 'rock' in the opening sentence. Black Sabbath has had a long history and valid arguments can be made for many genres, if all were in the infobox it would be a big mess. The 'Musical style' and 'Influence and innovation' sections in the text of the article are the places to describe (with proper references) these various genres. J04n(talk page) 00:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Associated acts

Apologies if this has been discussed here before - but should Jethro Tull really be in associated acts ? So Tony Iommi played with Tull for a short period before Sabbath existed - is that enough to warrant inclusion there ? -- Beardo (talk) 11:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say no. J04n(talk page) 15:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that any band that Iommi, Osbourne, Butler, or Ward played in should be listed, and also any band that at least two other members played in should also be listed. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 16:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This is contradictory to the guidelines at Template:Infobox musical artist. The following uses of this field should be avoided...Groups with only one member in common. J04n(talk page) 17:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but according to WP:IAR and WP:WIARM, exceptions to rules and guidelines can be made. This shouldn't be a discussion about whether the guidelines say Jethro Tull should be listed, it should be a discussion on whether or not that guideline should be ignored in this instance. I believe it should be ignored because, while Black Sabbath has had many members, by far the most well-known and longest-lasting members are Iommi, Osbourne, Butler, and Ward, and I believe that because of this we should give more weight to other bands that they have been in. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 22:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion IAR should not be invoked for a situation where one band member was in another band for only 15 minutes (yes, I'm exaggerating). J04n(talk page) 22:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to stick to the guideline here. Iommi was hardly noted for being in Jethro Tull. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Whatever, as long as you also remove GZR and Rainbow. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 19:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with GZR being removed, but Rainbow and Sabbath share three members that I can think of, so they're eligible. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, I forgot about Cozy Powell, that makes them eligible. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 03:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Bill Wards addition to 'current members'

There are multiple conflicting reports with regards to Bill Wards involvement in both a reunion and recording. Most current report is that Bill has pulled out. BigJoeRockHead (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Sorry for the redundant post; I just noticed the other. BigJoeRockHead (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Photographs

I found it striking that this article omits a good picture of the early band composition. Shouldn't that be a no-brainer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.143.247 (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hard rock should be included

i recently searched for reliable sources about the genre of black sabbath!! I have to say that their 4 first albums are cited as hard rock by allmusic(go check it out yourselves or http://www.allmusic.com/album/black-sabbath-r1998,http://www.allmusic.com/album/paranoid-r1999,http://www.allmusic.com/album/master-of-reality-r2000,http://www.allmusic.com/album/black-sabbath-vol-4-r2001 at these links) please answer and add it now if possible!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paokaraforlife (talk • contribs) 19:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt that they are a hard rock band and this is detailed in the text of the article. The issue with putting it in the infobox is they are a lot of things and we end up with an endless list of genres in the infobox. It was decided a while back to just include metal in the infobox, rock in the opening sentence and everything else in the appropriate places in the text of the article. Consensus can change, so if folks disagree we can change things but my opinion is to keep the way it is. J04n(talk page) 19:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the info box shouldn't be a mess! But adding a 2nd(only)genre wouldn't be of much harm and it won't make it a mess and anyway it is the truth and it isn't even mentioned anywhere in the article so........ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paokaraforlife (talk • contribs) 16:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's reach a consensus before making a change, it may take a few days before a fair number of folks respond, there's no urgency here. The problem, in my opinion, of adding a second is which two? Why not blues-rock? doom metal? stoner rock? All of these are regularly brought up. Infoboxes for bands that have been around awhile are ripe for messy edit wars, we've tried to keep this one fairly stable which is part of the criteria that it met in becoming a good article. J04n(talk page) 17:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

i agree that there is no need for rush and the reason we can't add any other genre is that fisrt of all it doesn't cover a big section of their music and because we can't find any source to back it up so hard rock is the only considerable option — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paokaraforlife (talk • contribs) 15:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Genre's for this particular article is probably a dead issue, I'm sure if you scan through the archives this subject has been discussed to death. Mlpearc (powwow) 17:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Ward's removal from offical Sabbath's site

It seems Bill Ward has been removed from all images on Sabbath's official site, Please lets work together and get good sources and get as close to the truth as we can before we have a reverting war. Mlpearc (powwow) 21:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the "Official" statement from BS.com Black Sabbath.com Mlpearc (powwow) 13:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, there is no immediately hurry. We can wait for a while and make sure that what is here is accurate and balanced.--SabreBD (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Tony Clufetos

Black Sabbath have a new drummer to replace bill ward, as mentioned on Geezer Butler's site. i notice that Tony clufetos is now on the band member timeline, surely he should be in the infobox too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ERAGON (talk • contribs) 18:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I would think NOT until the addition has a "valid reliable" source to go with it. This article is going to be here for ever, we need not be so hasty. Personally I'd wait until it is officially announced on BS.com IMO. P. S. the mention on Geezer site says Clufetos is there, in practice secessions but, NO ONE has offically said that he is a member of the band. Mlpearc (powwow) 19:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

True. Lets sit tight with our eyes peeled for now then.--ERAGON (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Should be Black Sabath is (not are)

We're talking collectively/together...I always learned that you in proper English, you can say a group/family/whatever are/were/whatever but only if you are talking about each individual member and something about them individually that is different from the rest. Like, the family are going to London and New York City. Or Black Sabbath are now Ozzy Osbourne as a famous solo artist, Tommy Iommi as...(whatever)...to clarity, in order to have a plural conjugated verb, like are/were, you would need to be able to insert "members" after the group (family, band, whaever) P.S.: I was just going to change it but was prompted, idiotically, to discuss changes to the lead and infobox (before making them)--99.124.128.157 (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)