Originally Posted by
Pontius
http:///forum/post/2506048
you said you saw SABBATH in 1965, and you were corrected. if you want to go back and correct your earlier post, go ahead. but you DIDN'T see Black Sabbath play in 1965. just like seeing Jimmy Page playing in the Yardbirds wouldn't amount to seeing Led Zeppelin play. you saw future members of Black Sabbath playing in a band. just like future members of ACDC were also playing in a band around the same time.
but here's the point....in your original post, you made Sabbath out to be pioneers and ACDC out to be a bunch of johnny-come-latelies because of some kind of perceived large time span when the 2 bands formed. and that's the point, that there's only about a 3 year time difference. you said Sabbath started doing their thing in the mid-60s...not true. and that ACDC started doing their thing in the "late 70s/80s"...also not true. Sabbath DID come first, but only by 2-3 years.
and you're right, there are plenty of people who'd say Iommi is better than Angus. but the vast majority wouldn't, I could almost guarantee you that.
you're also correct that, musically speaking, jazz is far more advanced than rock. but I never saw a mosh pit at a jazz show, so I just don't care.
You're arguing the name, I'm arguing the music. Iommi wrote all their songs, listen to their stuff from the mid sixties and compare to the first "black sabbath" album same stuff, crappier drummer. Thus your Page allusion is not apt as he wasn't their primary song writer. Ozzy didn't really affect their sound till 69 70 (musically that is). I'll concede they changed their name, but I won't concede that they were different than Iommi/Ward's previous bands. I guess I don't view the name as defining the sound/music.
FYI, even the absolute value of 68-73 is 6 years which you reduced to three for the sake of your argument.
You're right, and I have conceded already that ACDC began in 73 not the late 70s (thought their 1st Australian LP release was in 1975, thus they did not yet have widespread recognition in the US, which would actually make the time differential closer to 7 or 8 years than the 3 you cite). However I am still right in that they were also active in the 80s. I still stand by point that during this time era when Led Zeppelin, The Who, Stones, Beatles were producing so prolifically, it really does make a 1973 entry kind of late in the game.
You're putting words in my mouth, I only said I prefer jazz not that it was more "advanced." I quite arguing with the Rock crowd about that, but hey, I will applaud you for giving jazz that.