Page 1 of 2

Why exactly did Ozzy fire Jake?

Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:25 am
by zmack mylde
What is the full documented story of why Jake was fired? I thought he was the best replacement for Randy.

Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:38 am
by NicDots
I don't think there's just one sole reason. I think they were both just pissing each other off at the end of the day. I do remember reading in an article that was posted here that they are friendly to each other these days which is good.

Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:23 pm
by Paul Wolfe
From what I understand, Jake was used to being the band leader from his days with Ratt and Rough Cutt. So when he joined Ozzy's band he considered himself a "hired gun" on the first record, but by the second he felt he was a "band member" and asserted his opinions on the music.

As you may know, Sharon and Ozzy don't like people with opinions. Especially when those people voice there opinions to Ozzy and Sharon. So Jake went by the wayside and Zakk came in.

I think the difference is that Zakk knows his role in Ozzy's band, that's why he branched out with Black Label Society - to have a chance to do his thing while still doing Ozzy's thing.

Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 11:35 pm
by whoopiecat
...

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:06 am
by NicDots
I remember reading an interview with John Sinclair (I think that's who it was...) and he said he's known Ozzy forever and that he had so much dirt on him as far as bad behavior went, he had to sign a confidentiality agreement. I don't know if he was kidding or not. It wouldn't surprise me though.

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 2:55 am
by Paul Wolfe
I'm not sure if they were asked to sign anything, but I'm sure the threat of lawsuits keeps many of them quiet.

Jake hasn't done anything in a while to bring in big dollars, so if he talked trash about Ozzy and Sharon sued him, I'd bet he'd be hurting...

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:14 am
by NicDots
I wonder under what terms they could sue someone under, especially if the person revealed unbecoming facts about Ozzy/whoever. Slander? You can't just sue someone because they said something bad about you.

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:35 am
by Paul Wolfe
Skully wrote:I wonder under what terms they could sue someone under, especially if the person revealed unbecoming facts about Ozzy/whoever. Slander? You can't just sue someone because they said something bad about you.
I'd say libel:
libel
1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation.
The key being "an untruth". If Jake were to say it and Ozzy were to have issue with it, he'd claim it was "an untruth" and have grounds to sue.

Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 1:20 pm
by whoopiecat
...

Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 1:43 pm
by dogfall
Rudy explained this to me in detail.. The only thing that he changed was the title of the book.

The only thing she did was pressure John Stix! Cherry Lane has accounts with Ozzy and she gave a threat to pull the accounts if Rudy's book was put out through Cherry Lane.

Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 2:50 pm
by NicDots
I still can't get my head around why she wouldn't want that book published. I mean, Rudy was nothing but complimentary toward the two of them! I'm guessing she wanted royalties out of the thing I suppose....
God knows why Kevin didn't want it out though...

Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 3:45 pm
by whoopiecat
...

Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 5:08 pm
by ken01fan
I remember reading an interview in the 80's sometime after Jake was let go, and Ozzy said that Jake got to a point where he would rather work on his cars than practice playing guitar. Ozzy said whenever he wanted to work on some new material Jake always had something else to do.Thats what the interview said anyways, how true it is I don't know.

Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 10:40 pm
by NicDots
That maybe true, Jake wanting to work on his cars than play guitar, but you have to wonder why. I think his love for cars seemed like a better place to invest his time than with a fat, cracked out, incoherent slob, which was what Ozz was in 1986.

Re:

Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2010 8:51 am
by Majestical 550
NicDots wrote:That maybe true, Jake wanting to work on his cars than play guitar, but you have to wonder why. I think his love for cars seemed like a better place to invest his time than with a fat, cracked out, incoherent slob, which was what Ozz was in 1986.
My sentiments exactly as I was reading through this! I don't blame Jake, have you heard the rehearsals / demos on youtube from BATM ozzy how that album or any of the songs ever even came to be are a miracle!