Saturday, February 21, 2009

"I have a rare version of (insert song title here)!" NO YOU DON'T!!!

Yeah ok, so that title is a bit over the top. Lately I've been seeing some perculiar things on YouTube that I thought I would point out and comment on, just because I can. One thing that has struck me as odd is the number of "super rare Sabbath tracks" on YouTube that turn out to be one of the following:

A) Not even a Sabbath song.

B) Something that's ridiculously common that people THINK is rare.

The second situation is somewhat forgivable. The first isn't. With the power of the internet at a person's disposal, there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why people should be posting music without checking it out first and making sure what they are actually posting is authentic. The reason I make a big deal about this is because I occasionally get messages from people asking if the stuff I post is legitmate, which of course it is. However, this doubt wouldn't exist if there weren't dumbasses posting music that isn't what they claim it to be. Here's a couple examples I'd like to share with you all.

Example 1: (EDIT: link has been removed)

Claim: This guy has posted a video called Black Sabbath - Electric Sleep. It's a track unreleased from the Paranoid-era. It's super rare!

What it actually is: Any idiot with a working hand could of gone to "related videos" and clicked on Sheavy's "Electric Sleep", where you would find THE EXACT same track being played live. You think the uploader would have been curious at all...but I guess not. This is stupidity at it's finest.

Example 2:

Claim: "Black Sabbath Paranoid (unknow demo) i've found this on a blog and i even remember the name, don't ask me questions about it 'cause i don't know! "

What it really is: Apparently in this user's excitement to get this "gem" uploaded, he didn't bother to proofread his title or video info. Already a bad sign. I have my doubts that this user found this on a blog, unless that blog was called "shitty 13 year old guitar player can play the Paranoid riff on his Squier guitar and record it and put it on YouTube". Now, if that had been the title of his video, then I would have no qualms about it. Instead, he has chosen to falsely title the video, which now will only bring him ridicule and shame. Mostly from me.

Example 3 (the best for last):

Claim: Black Sabbath * Sweet Leaf (clear sound)

What it really is: Yeah, it does have a clear sound. I also noticed that Ozzy has been replaced with a singer who can't even sing in the correct time, and the instruments have all been overdubbed! What a gem this is!

Now seriously...this has to be a joke. So I started prodding the guy for questions and this is what he tells me:

blacksabfan (2 days ago)
And what compilation would that be?

faggotmutilator666 (1 day ago)
Polish. Kinda odd, but it was cheap, so i got it. If you don't believe me, then don't.

Either he doesn't want to give up the ghost, or he's an idiot. Maybe he's embarrassed that he actually purchased this and has mentally convinced himself that he's listening to Black Sabbath. Then again, if I was Polish, I'd be upset because I don't think anyone from Poland would waste their time creating such a bootleg. It simply can't be an item that actually exists. It's a shitty cover, by a guy who doesn't sound anything like Ozzy. Again, if he wanted to post the cover, then by all means post it, but don't fucking say it's Black Sabbath. It's not. What pisses me off the most is that the guy keeps arguing with me and uses the lame excuse that he's just posting what it says on the cover. Here's an idea...LISTEN TO THE FUCKING SONG. This guy knows damn well it's not Sabbath, but insists on posting it as such anyway. In my world, if I ran YouTube, the guy would have his account taken away. Yeah, it sounds harsh...but there's too many people that spend years of their time collecting, cataloguing, and maintaining great collections of unreleased/live/bootleg material, to have to deal with shit like this. It's a waste of everyone's time and it's dishonest. People shouldn't have to doubt collectors that have extensive knowledge of the band's material just because some dolts think they have some great unreleased demo version of Paranoid. It's all fools' gold people...fools' gold.

Saturday, February 14, 2009

The DIME Mods are illiterate assholes.

Just recently I posted "More Peel Sessions" on DIME. First off, I would like to thank a fellow YouTuber, who went out of his way in getting me lossless copies of his silvers so I could post this on DIME.

About an hour ago, I got an email from one of the Mods on DIME about a reply I had made to another user. The user was slightly upset that I had removed a track from the torrent I posted. The track in question is "Emerald", recorded on 2/12/76 for the BBC. The actual boot lists the song as "Warriors", which is a mistake. As you can see this is already a slightly confusing issue. In any event, I removed the track from the torrent as the rules say you must.

Anyway, I replied to the user, saying that I had no intentions of posting the torrent on another site in full. I then explained the switch and said that a version of Warriors did in fact appear on another unreleased Peel Sessions disc (I think it's titled "Peel Sessions: Deep From the Vaults" or something...). I also have that particular track, and it's here on YouTube (look up "Warriors" BBC Session). This track is on the third release, and I expressed some hope that another user would post this 3rd disc.

Then I get the email from the Mod. He totally sends me this long uber-complicated and long-winded email, saying how my reply is bannable because I suggested that I was going to repost the torrent with the official release, and that on DIME, it could be trouble for them. What the fuck???? That's not what I said at all. I guess these people can't fucking read. Besides, even if I had said what they claimed, is it really THAT big a deal? Just fucking delete it and move on. I'd post the email sent to me here in full...but it's way too fucking long. I'll just post the first part, and my response.

"Before you read the rest of this message, open a window or tab in your browser and read this item in DIME's FAQ, so that you'll know what our policy is: OK, have you read it? Then let's continue. You posted this comment (#3074506) on (Thin Lizzy - More Peel Sessions )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------In comment #3074174 Drifter1 wrote something like this:could you possibley upload this in its entirety at the traders den,its such a travesty to see Emerald cut off this,one of the best songs Phil wrote hands down....plz give it some thought,all the same its very nice to see this shared: )--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[This below is my original posted comment on the this!]

It's really not that big a deal. The officially released Peel Sessions disc has the exact same version of Emerald. I have it (in lossless) and got curious so I compared them and they are identical. However, I want to say that there is a version of 'Warriors' on another Peel Sessions boot. I have some of the tracks from it, but not in lossless, or the whole disc. Perhaps someone else has this disc and would like to share...

The Mod's reply
Because you were qouting Drifter1's comment and in addition suggested that someone else than yourself could upload the official material elsewhere, we've had to delete your comment. [NO! I said nothing about uploading official material!!!!] As you previosuly have been warned for spreading bannable, we know you this is a violation of DIME's terms of service.Drifter1 clearly asked you as uploader a question, but instead answering him a simple *no* this is officially released material so you can buy it, you chose to repete his message before you vaguely suggested that perhaps someone else could upload this elsewhere. [Yeah, the unofficial disc...not the official Peel Sessions disc...fucking christ!!!] You had the choice to handle this very differently. Instead of qouting Drifter1, you could for instance have reported the comment to the moderators and/or answered him differently and without repeating his comment, which of course would put you in a different light.DIME gets legal threats all the time, and two of them went so far as to get us shut down. We have to keep our noses very clean here. It won't help us much not to carry official material on the tracker if our front end is going to be a meetingplace for people who arranging to share it under the table. [It goes on...and on...and on...]

My reply:

"You misunderstood. The track "Warriors" has not been officially released and appears on yet another unreleased Peel Sessions disc. (I know because I have a copy of track, albeit not in lossless). I never said anything about posting this torrent with "Emerald" elsewhere, nor did I suggest anyone else should. I DID suggest that someone post the other unreleased Peel Sessions disc, since I don't have it. Perhaps instead of writing long-winded emails to me snapping at me for violating the CoC (which I didn't), you should read more carefully.

Thanks for understanding,

Now instead of them realizing their mistake and apologizing and this being forgotten about...I get TWO replies from the Mods...

From: DIME Mod Phenix059
"Ryan, your snotty irony in answer to a private email you were sent is perfectly OK in a private answer. But i *strongly* recommend you think twice before making your rant public."

Now, I didn't answer this email, because I know my account is more valuable then a fucking Mod on a powertrip. If I truly didn't care, I would of let this asshole have it. Let's remember it was THEM who fucked up in the first place. They are lucky they are just getting "snotty" out of me, rather than me opening up a can of E-whoopass on them. Besides...what does he mean by irony? The only irony is that they can type me long-winded emails about how I broke the CoC when they don't even understand what my initial comments were to begin with...which didn't break anything in the CoC.

From DIME Mod Brother_52
You misunderstood.

"No we didnt misunderstand. Drifter1 refered to "Emerald" which is available on "The Peel Session" released on Strange Fruit SFRCD 130.You wrote the following in the torrent description"Track 11, listed as "Warriors" is actually "Emerald" and has been officially released on The Peel Sessions Disc. It is not included as part of this torrent and is shown merely as a reference"You qouted Drifter1's spreading bannable comment where he asked for the full set including "Emerald" being uploaded elsewhere,where upon you answered "Perhaps someone else has this disc and would like to share... "."

[This is a fucking FAIL if I ever saw one. This dumbass still thinks I'm referring to the officially released Peel Sessions disc, rather than the 3rd disc which is one of the two that remain unreleased. For the record, there is no version of 'Warriors' on the officially released Peel Sessions, so I'm not sure what the fuck he is talking about. I honestly don't know how I could of been more clear on this. Holy shit...]

The track "Warriors" has not been officially released and appears on yet another unreleased Peel Sessions disc. (I know because I have a copy of track, albeit not in lossless).

"We are not talking about "Warriors" which is unreleased, but the track wrongly named on the bootleg "Warriors" which is infact "Emerald" from the Peel Session February 12th 1976, and which is officially released."

[I know what you're talking about. But that wasn't what I was talking about...]

Perhaps instead of writing long-winded emails to me snapping at me for violating the CoC (which I didn't), you should read more carefully.

"You have been warned previosly for spreading bannable and should have known better."

[Yeah, and I haven't since then. Still haven't. You think I did because you simply can't read.]

He then goes on to my two prior offenses. The first one was me mentioning that I downloaded the full version of the Hitchin Show on TradersDen (I didn't know you couldn't even speak about uploading something someplace else) and the second was when the assholes from RL showed up at DIME and we got into it. DIME didn't like us too much for that, and I don't blame them, but I was just defending myself and I have no regrets. Oh...and a third if you count how I referred this situation back on the original thread about how the Mod was wrong. And he is wrong.

All I would like is an apology...or hell...even an admittance that they misread the post. I don't care that it's deleted and it's not a big deal anyway. They want to make it a big deal. The high and mighty mods aren't ever wrong about anything though...

Fuck them, I'll just stop uploading my stuff there. I can do it over at the TradersDen from now on. If you're used to seeing me on DIME, then maybe you should get used to seeing me someplace else, because I'm tried of dealing with these asshole moderators who can't even fucking read, and when they get something wrong...get pissy about it when someone calls them on it. I typed 5 sentences back and the guy said it was a rant. Five sentences is not a rant. This blog is a rant. Get it fucking right!

That said, I didn't email them back. I don't want my account banned because of THEIR stupidity. Let those assholes think whatever they want. It's a good thing being a DIME mod doesn't make you shit in the real world...

Leave this asshole a message on his channel.

I found this on my channel page this afternoon:

apocalypticbeast (10 hours ago)
how the fuck can you like music with a nigger in it you must be a black cunt your self Block User Spam Marked as spam

Normally, I don't take it upon myself to gang up on people, but this person is a waste of air. I've already taken the liberty of reporting him to YouTube (this isn't the only 'brilliant' comment he has left; see his channel page). Everyone else should do the same. Get this fucker's IP banned permanently. There's nothing acceptable about this, whether you like Phil Lynott or not.

A record 15 minutes after writing this and reporting this bastard, his account was closed by YouTube. Hahahaha!

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Bob Daisley and Lee Kerslake vs. the Osbournes

Hi Everyone. I know this issue has been beaten to death, but I need to make some comments about it...mostly to shut up some obnoxious hard-core Ozzy fans.

On this particular post:, a discussion about the afforementioned issue has begun with myself and a user by the name of TheJayDeeOldBoy. I need to clarify some stuff about this issue before I go into my argument. This user previously went by the name "Sabbath370". Some of my longtime subscribers may remember him. He was an obnoxious jerk who pretty much had a hard-on for Ozzy Osbourne, hated Dio, hated anyone who argued against Ozzy's contributions to anything, and then when asked to prove his arguments, never could. He thinks he's some kind of expert, but in all reality, he doesn't know shit. He might be the British version of Scott Lifshine (some of you know who he is as well, and that should tell you something). His account was banned by YouTube long before the crusade that groups like WMG have taken on, and I'm fairly sure he was banned by YouTube simply because everything he said was idiotic, annoying, and 100% incorrect. He's like a troll, except trolls usually just do it for attention. He does it because he actually thinks he's correct.

Anyway, as most of you are aware, Bob Daisley and Lee Kerslake were the original bassist and drummer for Ozzy Osbourne's solo band. They played and were credited on the first album, and also recorded the music for the second album, "Diary of A Madman". However, an issue arose about money. Daisley and Kerslake weren't being paid. Then, while on a vacation, Daisley and Kerslake were both fired, completely out of the blue. Rudy Sarzo and Tommy Aldridge were brought in AND given credit for the work on the album, despite the fact they never played a single note. Daisley and Kerslake later sued the Osbournes in 1987 and won a settlement.

I have a book in my personal rock library (that is still quite small), called "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath: The Battle for Black Sabbath", by Garry-Sharpe Young. It consists of many great interviews, although it takes from both the book "Black Sabbath: Never Say Die" and "Ozzy Osbourne: Rockdetector" (both written by Sharpe-Young). It's a good book to have if you want a perspective without shelling out for the latter, which I didn't. There's a good selection on page 59, where Aldridge said this:

"I remember someone (who shall remain nameless) trying to get me to rerecord the drums [on Diary]. I declined saying I couldn't approve upon what he [Kerslake] did. I didn't know it at the time, but I was being approached not to 'improve', but only to 'replace' his performance. I didn't know why but I can only imagine."

That was back in 1982 already. Oddly enough, Daisley returned to the fold and wrote 95% of the lyrics and some of the music for the following three albums after this (mostly because Ozzy's new musicians couldn't write shit either), through "No Rest of the Wicked". He also wrote lyrics for "No More Tears", but these were not used and other musicians and writers wrote that album for Ozzy. The entire Osbourne catalogue was remasted in 1995, and for the first time, people were able to pick up some of the original albums on CD. The catalogue was remastered again in 2002, but here's some important stuff to know:

1) The first two albums have the drums and bass entirely replaced by Mike Bordin and Robert Trujillo, effectively ruining them. (They sound like shit!)
2) 'Ultimate Sin' and 'Speak of the Devil' were completely deleted from the catalogue. (Good luck trying to buy those).

All this was done simply because Sharon didn't want Bob Daisley to get royalties for his work on the first two albums, and Ultimate Sin. I suppose there was no way to screw up the other two albums to prevent Bob Daisley from getting royalities from those either, but I doubt he's even getting paid anyway. If you're not aware, you can tell the difference between the '95 remasters and the '02 remasters by the CD cover. The former have "OZZY" in big letters with a small picture of the album, while the '02 remasters have the normal, full-sized cover. If you're looking to hear the original...go to Ebay and look online. They are still around. I actually bought "Ultimate Sin" brand new at Best Buy just over three years ago (2005) there's still hope.

So basically, if TheJayDeeOldBoy starts spewing nonsense from his piehole, don't listen to a word he says. Bob Daisley has been criminally mistreated by the Osbournes, and without him, Ozzy wouldn't be shit. That's right. Need further proof, look at the lyrics to Sabbath's "The Eternal Idol"...guess who wrote those?...

Bob Daisley...again.

I'm not going to repeat too much of the discussion on the YouTube page, but just so you are all aware, Ozzy admitted in 2004 that Daisley was the main lyric writer for ALL of his 80's output. Some fans still claim that in '82, Randy Rhoads said that him and Ozzy wrote it and that Bob Daisley didn't. That's a lie, and this is where I can use my history degree (which is given when one figures out how to sift through sources and determine was is actually fact, and what is actually bullshit) to explain why it's a lie. It's actually common sense. Do you really think that in 1982, Randy is going to go to an interview, with Ozzy at his side and Sharon probably in the backroom, and freely say on Radio/TV that an outsider and persona non grata in the Osbourne camp wrote "Diary of a Madman". You bet your ass he wouldn't. You can pretty much write that one off you Ozzy fans. Don't be so gullible...

Anyway, Daisley attempted to sue again in 2002, but his case was dismissed. He hasn't said much about it, but claims that outside influence and threats against him were made if he chose to pursue the matter. He has a book coming out about it, and when it comes out, I'm probably going to purchase it. Besides his work with Ozzy, he's also worked with Sabbath, Gary Moore, Rainbow, and some other amazing musicians. Probably a good buy for any rock music fan.

So anti-Daisley fans...I'll be looking forward to your arguments over at YouTube.

Oh, and TheJayDeeOldBoy...good luck trying to create the "Soon to be best channel for Black Sabbath, Ozzy Osbourne and other related videos". I can't even say that with a straight face.

Sunday, February 8, 2009


Hey everyone,

I decided to come back from my self-imposed hiatus. I was sort of on one since about Xmas until that infamous song called "The Rebel" came knocking at my door, but I really made no mention of it to anyone.

I want to clear up a few more things about The Rebel.

I took it down because it wasn't worth all the trouble. Both from people who didn't want me to post it, and the 2390483248 people asking me to send it to them. Am I scared of being sued? Not really. Technically, I could be sued by anyone for ANY of the material I have posted. I don't legally own any of it. No one, other than the band and their management, has legal rights over bootlegged/ROIO material. The only exception, at least in America, is if you go to a concert and tape the show yourself and freely trade it (not for profit). However, this activity is also not permitted by most venues or bands, but it happens anyway. Everything about non-official material is illegal in some way or another, either by how it was created or how it's used/exploited. Nevermind that 80% of the videos on YouTube are in violation of copyright. Let's not forget that. The reason it's not challenged more than it is, is because it's NOT THAT BIG A DEAL. Everyone still makes their money and drives their sports's ok.

Thin Lizzy's management hasn't come to me complaining about me posting Lynott's demo material, although they very well could. I don't own it, but it IS out people might as well be hearing it for free (at least until someone gets around to remastering it and releasing it officially--HINT HINT), rather than being forced to pay for it on Ebay or something.

Sabbath has also said that they don't care about their live shows being taped. They know it happens, and they don't really care, as long as they aren't being sold for profit.

So what's the big deal about "The Rebel"? It's never been officially released and the band hates it so much that they don't plan on releasing it. It's out there now--it was out there before I ever found it--so what should be done? Personally, I'm starting to think I should of left it up, but I was sick of being bitched at by two people who claim they don't care what happens to me, yet take it upon themselves to badmouth me and tattle to anyone close to Black Sabbath. To be honest, Black Sabbath and their management probably don't give a shit. If they had, I probably would of heard something from them. I never did and probably never will.

I could post some of the hilarious PMs I received from the afforementioned gentlemen about my actions. They called me "combative" and "hostile", saying I had a "fuck you--I'll do what I want attitude" when the emails and PMs sent are as nice and polite as I could possibly make them. (This was the opposite of RL incident, where I actually was very combative, with good reason). I don't want to because it's a lot of correspondence I'd have to dig out and personally it's not that big a deal. If they think I was combative, then they don't have a fucking clue about what "combative" is. 'Combative' would of been me leaving the track up and telling them both to fuck off. Obviously, I didn't do that. I didn't even piss and moan about it. In hindsight, it was dumb to post the track, not because of it's legality (like I said, nothing I post is legal), but because of all the attention it was going to get...good and bad. Personally, I'd rather not have to answer 100 emails about 'The Rebel' daily. It's just a song.

The biggest irony of it all is that while the material that I post is illegally created and illegal to sell and sometimes own, is that it actually is allowed on YouTube. Well, again, it probably technically isn't, but I've seen people bitching lately about YouTube cracking down on people who continue to upload footage that has copyright issues. I've never been warned by YouTube, and I've had a total of TWO videos out of 307 be removed...and this was just recently. One was the song "Daddy Rolling Stone" with Lynott, Johnny Thunders, and Steve Mariott. The other was a fan-made mix that used a couple versions of Yellow Pearl. Nothing else has even been threatened with removal. My account is in good standing, and unless something suddenly changes, it should remain in good standing.

Well that's my thoughts. I posted my first video (Don't Let Him Slip Away - Thin Lizzy) a year from this coming Saturday (Feb 14), so look for some new stuff this week, to be capped off by a very special post Thursday night (Feb 12) to mark the event. I don't want to wait until the weekend, because most of my activity occurs doing the week, and V-Day is this Saturday, and I won't be around anyway. The post will be Lizzy/Lynott related, just as my first one was. And I'll even give you a lyric to see if anyone can figure it out ahead of time:

"You gotta fight...for your gotta strike...while the feeling is gotta push on...for your loved gotta try...until the battle is won..."

Have a good week.