DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Music Discussion => Topic started by: WildRanger on February 24, 2018, 10:05:31 AM
-
Which band is more beloved here?
The one who started the metal thing or the latter one?
As much as I love Maiden, Black Sabbath easily for me. First 6 Sabs albums plus Heaven & Hell and Mob Rules - 'nuff said. And classic BS stuff has always sounded more creative and musically diverse than 80's Maiden stuff.
-
Easy for me - Iron Maiden. Although I like Sabbath as well, Maiden has had way more impact in my life.
-
Sabbath.
-
Both great bands of course, but I'd have to go with Maiden for the same reason as Zydar.
-
Gotta go with Maiden.
-
If I did a favorite artists lists in 2018, Black Sabbath would be top 30, maybe even top 25.
Iron Maiden would be lucky to make my top 100.
Easy vote for me.
-
Ooh, tough one. Iron Maiden is way more consistent, but Black Sabbath's classic 70's (and some of their 80's stuff) is really, really good and easily up there with Maiden's best. Also, it seems to me that Sabbath was more willing to try and do new things, but maybe that's just a result of their more fluid lineups.
That said, I gotta give it to Maiden here. Their 30+ years of fairly relative consistency (barring, of course, the 90's...) trumps Sabbath's maybe decade, decade-and-a-half of good material.
-
Iron Maiden, no contest for me. Always been my favorite band, always will. I will never ever deny the importance of Black Sabbath's 70s run, but my favorite albums by them are the ones with Dio.
-
I discovered Sabbath quite recently and I have always listened to Maiden. I love both and even though Sabbath's discography is less consistent than Maiden's (even though it is also inconsistent), I prefer Sabbath. The principle of 'less is more' applies here. I think the albums Sabbath released up to Sabotage are so good that it wins over Maiden.
-
Maiden is love. Maiden is life. No contest here.
-
Iron Maiden, no contest for me. Always been my favorite band, always will. I will never ever deny the importance of Black Sabbath's 70s run, but my favorite albums by them are the ones with Dio.
-
I see that Iron Maiden is probably the second worshipped band on this board after Rush. ;D
-
I'm only a casual fan of Ozzy era Sabbath, but Dio Sabbath is some of my favorite music ever. Big fan of the Martin era too.
But overall, Iron Maiden would be my choice.
-
If there wasn't Black Sabbath there wouldn't be an Iron Maiden.
As far as taste goes, I prefer Sabbath over Maiden.
-
If there wasn't Black Sabbath there wouldn't be an Iron Maiden.
I never understand the point of these type of comments.
Why does it matter?
Doing it first does not mean that those that come after you cannot do it as good or better.
-
Sabbath may have created the genre, but I'll take Maiden over them any day of the week - especially all their 80s albums.
-
Maiden were the best band on the planet up to and including Seventh Son so its Maiden for me every time.
-
The ones that created it versus the ones that perfected it.
-
The Dio albums were the best from Sabbath ( can't stand the vocals on the 70's Sabbath albums ). I feel that Tony Iommi , Geezer Butler , and Bill Ward were innovators even through the 1980's. But they can't begin to hold up to the incredible stretch from the Debut through Somewhere in Time by Iron Maiden ( I'm slowly coming around to SS but I'm old and stubborn ).
-
( can't stand the vocals on the 70's Sabbath albums ).
(https://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/affraid.gif)(https://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/affraid.gif)(https://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/affraid.gif)(https://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/affraid.gif)(https://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/affraid.gif)
-
( can't stand the vocals on the 70's Sabbath albums ).
(https://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/affraid.gif)(https://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/affraid.gif)(https://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/affraid.gif)(https://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/affraid.gif)(https://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/affraid.gif)
Well, me neither. There's nothing great about Ozzy's vocals. He had the "luck" of being the first one of the genre, he kinda defined it so we hold his contribution in high esteem. But if we pretend he's an upcoming vocalist, I doubt many would consider him. Whenever they would pop up in history, anyone would recognize Bruce Dickinson, Ian Gillian and Rob Halford have the proper pipes. Erase Halford from Priest's history, make him an unknown guy on YouTube, and people would still go "damn, impressive" at him. Do the same with Ozzy, I'm not so sure how many would care about him.
-
Sabbath all the way.
As I mentioned in the Maiden vs Metallica thread, Maiden is a bit formulaic and gets boring after a while. Sabbath, on the other hand, is one of my all-time faves, and the first 6 albums are immortal classics.
-
Well, me neither. There's nothing great about Ozzy's vocals. He had the "luck" of being the first one of the genre, he kinda defined it so we hold his contribution in high esteem. But if we pretend he's an upcoming vocalist, I doubt many would consider him. Whenever they would pop up in history, anyone would recognize Bruce Dickinson, Ian Gillian and Rob Halford have the proper pipes. Erase Halford from Priest's history, make him an unknown guy on YouTube, and people would still go "damn, impressive" at him. Do the same with Ozzy, I'm not so sure how many would care about him.
You don't have to reach high notes and sing extremely well and flawless to be a good vocalist. If the voice fits the sound of the band, that's what matters. I don't think Ozzy is a great vocalist either. But he doesn't have to be. I prefer his voice on the 70s records over anything Bruce, Gillian or Halford ever did.
It is not a competition. It is not like you listen to a band and you say "you know this vocalist is good, but that one and that one and that one are much better, therefore... bla bla bla". I can name a thousand bands who have average vocalists, but with a voice so distinct and remarkable, a voice that really fits the sound of the band, that comparisons become futile.
Like for example... pick Andy Latimer of Camel (I know, not metal, but it's an example anyway). He's not a singer at all, but I love his voice. It fits the mood and the atmosphere of his music perfectly. The thought of "this vocalist is SO MUCH BETTER than Andy Latimer" doesn't even cross my mind.
And this goes for a lot of vocalists out there. There are many of them who sing perfectly, who can reach very low and very high notes, but very often they leave me disappointed. Either because they sing in a certain way that is irritating (vide Anneke's annoying vibratos) or because their voice doesn't fit the sound of the band well. Anneke is a very good singer. I love her voice. But I gotta say.. she has sometimes an exaggerated and annoying vibrato (specially when singing with Devin Townsend live).
-
Yeah, who would pull off "What is this that stands before me?" better than Ozzy? Or the simple "Yeah!" in "Children of the Grave"? But I wouldn't want him to give "Child in Time" a try.
Anyway, this is impossible for me. It's cruel to make a poll like this without a "Can't decide - love them both" option. :biggrin:
-
Well said, ChuckSteak.
Those other metal singers might be better singers than Ozzy when it comes to range, technicality, etc,, but his voice helped make those early Sabbath albums what they were. Dio was the better Sabbath singer? Okay, who cares? His voice and style wouldn't have worked on most of those early Sabbath songs.
Well, me neither. There's nothing great about Ozzy's vocals. He had the "luck" of being the first one of the genre, he kinda defined it so we hold his contribution in high esteem. But if we pretend he's an upcoming vocalist, I doubt many would consider him. Whenever they would pop up in history, anyone would recognize Bruce Dickinson, Ian Gillian and Rob Halford have the proper pipes. Erase Halford from Priest's history, make him an unknown guy on YouTube, and people would still go "damn, impressive" at him. Do the same with Ozzy, I'm not so sure how many would care about him.
Music is not a skills competition. This isn't American freaking Idol. So the bolded really doesn't matter at all. And I am a huge fan of Halford's vocals (in his prime), but the fact that he was a better singer than Ozzy means diddly squat. Ozzy's voice was the best for Black Sabbath. :metal
-
The same applies for instruments. Virtuosity, speed, technicality don't mean shit. Latimer or Gilmour don't need speed to reach notes that hit you in your heart. "Ah but they can't play like this guitarist here, or they can't play this fast or this technical...". Who cares? ;D
-
Yeah well at least Ozzy made up for his lack of any tonal quality in his voice with his song writing ... I guess not. His stage presence , nope. He was a decent cool guy , a stand-up business guy who made honest deals and gave everyone a fair shake , um nope. And it's not that he isn't a great vocalist , he's a horrible vocalist and an awful person to go with the package man.
-
Count me in among the Ozzy defenders - he may not be able to reach stratospheric notes, but he's got personality, which is something that typical power metal wailers lack (not referring to Dickinson or Halford, just speaking in general terms). Anyone else (even Dio) singing something like War Pigs or Sweet Leaf just doesn't sound right.
-
Yeah well at least Ozzy(tm) made up for his lack of any tonal quality in his voice with his song writing ... I guess not. His stage presence , nope. He was a decent cool guy , a stand-up business guy who made honest deals and gave everyone a fair shake , um nope. And it's not that he isn't a great vocalist , he's a horrible vocalist and an awful person to go with the package man.
ALL. OF. THIS. I just made one little tweak to make it perfect.
-
If there wasn't Black Sabbath there wouldn't be an Iron Maiden.
As far as taste goes, I prefer Sabbath over Maiden.
This might be true, but there’s no way of knowing that for sure.
Maiden for me and it’s not even close. I do like Sabbath, I just feel Maiden are superior in every way.
-
Yeah well at least Ozzy made up for his lack of any tonal quality in his voice with his song writing ... I guess not. His stage presence , nope. He was a decent cool guy , a stand-up business guy who made honest deals and gave everyone a fair shake , um nope. And it's not that he isn't a great vocalist , he's a horrible vocalist and an awful person to go with the package man.
Well, this was more or less my points. Maybe I worded it wrongly, but I wasn't trying to say "He can't scream like Bruce or Rob".
Stating this obvious, that all of this goes under a gigantic IMO, I happen to personally think that Ozzy isn't a great singer or great frontman, putting aside his questionable off stage persona. Won't deny his historical importance, I can even agree that he works fine for the kind of music Black Sabbath were making, but I happen to think his singing voice isn't that great period, and that he was at the right place at the right time. That's why I made the fictional example of other singers being potentially noticed anyway even in other eras, while I think Ozzy worked just because he was there at the beginning of the entire scene. And I concede that someone could counter-agree "D'uh, that was precisely the entire point, HE was there at the right moment, not anybody else", it's just that - personally, of course - there's not a single Black Sabbath song out of those that I like where Ozzy's interpretation is the deciding factor in me liking it.
-
Yeah well at least Ozzy(tm) made up for his lack of any tonal quality in his voice with his song writing ... I guess not. His stage presence , nope. He was a decent cool guy , a stand-up business guy who made honest deals and gave everyone a fair shake , um nope. And it's not that he isn't a great vocalist , he's a horrible vocalist and an awful person to go with the package man.
ALL. OF. THIS. I just made one little tweak to make it perfect.
Much appreciated !!! That should be an autocorrect feature for sure.
https://www.bobdaisley.com/interview/website
-
Both top 5 bands, but Maiden is my all time favourite band, without question.
-
I find Ozzy-era Sabbath and Iron Maiden to be musically quite diferent.
Main difference is about the riffs. 70's Black Sabbath music is BASED on heavy guitar riffs and the riffs are a KEY feature of their metal sound, while heavy riffs are not important feature of Iron Maiden general sound. Iron Maiden are more melodic, galloping and harmonic than heavy. Plus Iommi's soloing is quite bluesy and psychedelic, while Iron Maiden guitar solos don't sound bluesy at all.
Do you agree with me?
-
I find Ozzy-era Sabbath and Iron Maiden to be musically quite diferent.
Main difference is about the riffs. 70's Black Sabbath music is BASED on heavy guitar riffs and the riffs are a KEY feature of their metal sound, while heavy riffs are not important feature of Iron Maiden general sound. Iron Maiden are more melodic, galloping and harmonic than heavy. Plus Iommi's soloing is quite bluesy and psychedelic, while Iron Maiden guitar solos don't sound bluesy at all.
Do you agree with me?
I agree with everything except that which I bolded (and I might even agree with that if it were more clear what "heavy riffs" means in this context). Keep in mind that, while most of Sabbath's most popular tunes were based on heavy riffs, a LOT of it was not (e.g., Planet Caravan and Changes).
I also noticed that, while I voted (for Maiden) when this thread was posted, I didn't comment. For me, the early Sabbath stuff is very hit or miss, and the Ozzy era generated only about a single CD's worth of great music. Dio era Sabbath was great (pretty much everything on H&H and Mob and at least a handful of songs on Dehumanizer are excellent), and I never got into anything after that, except for The Eternal Idol, which is mostly because I really liked the singer and the song The Shining.
Maiden, on the other hand, was 90+% killer (no pun intended) from the debut album through Somewhere in Time. The quality fell way off with Seventh Son, but Moonchild and particularly the title track are as good as anything Maiden ever did. No Prayer was not good, and I really only listen to the title track on Fear. I've only heard enough Bayley era Maiden to know I don't really want to go deeper, and I've been very remiss in catching up with reunion era Maiden.
-
Yeah well at least Ozzy(tm) made up for his lack of any tonal quality in his voice with his song writing ... I guess not. His stage presence , nope. He was a decent cool guy , a stand-up business guy who made honest deals and gave everyone a fair shake , um nope. And it's not that he isn't a great vocalist , he's a horrible vocalist and an awful person to go with the package man.
ALL. OF. THIS. I just made one little tweak to make it perfect.
I'm late to the party here; my pick is Maiden, but it's very very close.
As for the above, I think that's all overstating things to a large degree. I LIKE the way he sings on some of the mid-period Sabbath (I can't imagine anyone doing justice to "Spiral Architect" like Ozzy; listen to how Dio struggles with some of the Ozzy stuff live) so the tonal comment is totally subjective. And as for the rest, well, I guess you had to be there. There are a lot of people that know him a whole lot better than any of us that say quite different. After all the public nonsense and scuttlebutt, the only ones with a real hard-on for the guy are Daisley and Lee, and that's all about money. Iommi is reportedly still friends with him. Zakk Wylde LOVES the guy, worships him, basically.
-
I find Ozzy-era Sabbath and Iron Maiden to be musically quite diferent.
Main difference is about the riffs. 70's Black Sabbath music is BASED on heavy guitar riffs and the riffs are a KEY feature of their metal sound, while heavy riffs are not important feature of Iron Maiden general sound. Iron Maiden are more melodic, galloping and harmonic than heavy. Plus Iommi's soloing is quite bluesy and psychedelic, while Iron Maiden guitar solos don't sound bluesy at all.
Do you agree with me?
While Sabbath was clearly steeped in 60's blues/psychedelia, Maiden emerged from the ashes of punk rock, and as much as Steve Harris hates to admit, it, the punk influence is there.
I voted for Sabbath, but it's super close. And I have Ozzy-era over Dio-era.
-
While Sabbath was clearly steeped in 60's blues/psychedelia, Maiden emerged from the ashes of punk rock, and as much as Steve Harris hates to admit, it, the punk influence is there.
They're also heavily influenced by Thin Lizzy, UFO, Deep Purple, Rainbow, Jethro Tull, Budgie and Genesis.
-
I think this is the first poll where I can't choose a winner. Love them both and they both had profound influence on me musically.
-
No contest for me though, Maiden was my first love and we all know what that means.
-
While Sabbath was clearly steeped in 60's blues/psychedelia, Maiden emerged from the ashes of punk rock, and as much as Steve Harris hates to admit, it, the punk influence is there.
They're also heavily influenced by Thin Lizzy, UFO, Deep Purple, Rainbow, Jethro Tull, Budgie and Genesis.
Wishbone Ash!
-
Maiden by absolutely miles. Sabbath is fine and I enjoy some of their stuff but they've never flicked my switches. Don't like Ozzy as a vocalist or personality, either. I plan to give some of the Dio era some more time at some point.
-
Iron maiden without hesitation
-
Iron maiden without hesitation
-
Iron Maiden has 80%? That much? Wow.
-
Iron Maiden has 80%? That much? Wow.
I'm surprised the margin is that big, but I'm not surprised about the significant margin.
-
No surprise to see this. Maiden are much closer to DT in their sound than Sabbath. The operatic vocals, big guitar solos etc.
-
Pass.
-
I picked Maiden, but Sabbath are equally as great.
-
No surprise to see this. Maiden are much closer to DT in their sound than Sabbath. The operatic vocals, big guitar solos etc.
Rush and Iron Maiden are easily two most BELOVED bands on this board. Many polls show that.
Iron Maiden is widely preferred over Black Sabbath and Rush is widely preferred over Led Zeppelin (in one poll 80's Rush easily beat 70's Zeppelin).
-
I'd agree with most of what you said here, other than Rush being WIDELY preferred over Led Zep. Can't help but think it's not that big a gap. That poll you mentioned is kind of irrelevant.
-
What's next? Madonna or Metallica?
-
What's next? Madonna or Metallica?
That would be a silly poll. ;D But Metallica and Madonna have something in common: both are hugely commercial acts.
My first thread/poll when I came to DTF was "Rush vs. Deep Purple" and Rush won by a huge margin. And I think the main reason why the result was such, is that people on this board are nowhere near as familiar with Deep Purple's classic output as they're with Rush's.
-
Well I can say that I'm as equally unfamiliar with both Rush and Deep Purple's 'classic output'!
-
What's next? Madonna or Metallica?
That would be a silly poll. ;D But Metallica and Madonna have something in common: both are hugely commercial acts.
My first thread/poll when I came to DTF was "Rush vs. Deep Purple" and Rush won by a huge margin. And I think the main reason why the result was such, is that people on this board are nowhere near as familiar with Deep Purple's classic output as they're with Rush's.
I know. This may be hard to believe, but I was just being a wiseass :lol I actually kind of dig your polls, for most part. Wait, that didn't really come out the way I wanted :justjen
-
On a serious note, I guess I can see grouping these two in the same general classification, as in, "classic heavy metal" but they diverge rather drastically from there.
-
What's next? Madonna or Metallica?
That would be a silly poll. ;D But Metallica and Madonna have something in common: both are hugely commercial acts.
My first thread/poll when I came to DTF was "Rush vs. Deep Purple" and Rush won by a huge margin. And I think the main reason why the result was such, is that people on this board are nowhere near as familiar with Deep Purple's classic output as they're with Rush's.
I know. This may be hard to believe, but I was just being a wiseass :lol I actually kind of dig your polls, for most part. Wait, that didn't really come out the way I wanted :justjen
Get a room, you two! :) :) :)
-
My first thread/poll when I came to DTF was "Rush vs. Deep Purple" and Rush won by a huge margin. And I think the main reason why the result was such, is that people on this board are nowhere near as familiar with Deep Purple's classic output as they're with Rush's.
No, that is not the reason why. The reason is much simpler: People on this board, as a whole, prefer Rush's classic output to Purple's. Familiarity is not the issue.
-
My first thread/poll when I came to DTF was "Rush vs. Deep Purple" and Rush won by a huge margin. And I think the main reason why the result was such, is that people on this board are nowhere near as familiar with Deep Purple's classic output as they're with Rush's.
No, that is not the reason why. The reason is much simpler: People on this board, as a whole, prefer Rush's classic output to Purple's. Familiarity is not the issue.
Actually, I'm not surprised, seeing as DT owe a lot to Rush's work. And yes, personal preference is a thing. Very human, it seems. (Btw, I wouldn't know what to prefer here, but anyway. Seen both Purple and Rush live.)
-
My first thread/poll when I came to DTF was "Rush vs. Deep Purple" and Rush won by a huge margin. And I think the main reason why the result was such, is that people on this board are nowhere near as familiar with Deep Purple's classic output as they're with Rush's.
No, that is not the reason why. The reason is much simpler: People on this board, as a whole, prefer Rush's classic output to Purple's. Familiarity is not the issue.
Actually, I'm not surprised, seeing as DT owe a lot to Rush's work. And yes, personal preference is a thing. Very human, it seems. (Btw, I wouldn't know what to prefer here, but anyway. Seen both Purple and Rush live.)
I would think that, given they covered DP's live double album and have not, to date, covered any Rush album in it's entirety, that DP would be a major influence to the band.
-
aaah, you got me :D
-
My first thread/poll when I came to DTF was "Rush vs. Deep Purple" and Rush won by a huge margin. And I think the main reason why the result was such, is that people on this board are nowhere near as familiar with Deep Purple's classic output as they're with Rush's.
No, that is not the reason why. The reason is much simpler: People on this board, as a whole, prefer Rush's classic output to Purple's. Familiarity is not the issue.
Actually, I'm not surprised, seeing as DT owe a lot to Rush's work. And yes, personal preference is a thing. Very human, it seems. (Btw, I wouldn't know what to prefer here, but anyway. Seen both Purple and Rush live.)
I would think that, given they covered DP's live double album and have not, to date, covered any Rush album in it's entirety, that DP would be a major influence to the band.
Easily my favorite DT Cover Album. James is great on Child In Time.
-
Sabbath