New Sarzo interview 2012

Talk about other music and musicians.

Moderators: Randy Perry, The Flying Dutchman, Stiltzkin, skezza, Trigger

Post Reply
rokket
Madman
Posts: 407
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:45 am

Re: New Sarzo interview 2012

Post by rokket »

shred1 wrote:Guitaridol, this thread started as both an unwarranted shot at Rudy Sarzo for 'misleading' people about his presence at the accident scene, as well as a piece of low hanging fruit that was in my opinion, 'begging for a rebuttal'.

We have discussed all this before. I believe Mr. Daisley has been misleading the public as to WHO was the main culprit in his fleecing. I believe I have offered enough evidence to suggest that both Don and Dave Arden are just as responsible for what happened. Bob's well-rehearsed telling of the story rarely, if ever mentions Don Arden.

I believe it is misleading. That is where this thread started.

And if Bob did get paid, as many here have confirmed, then what the f**k is he still bitching about?

The fact that Bob has spilled his story again suggests that Mr Daisley has NOT let sleeping dogs lie.
Problem is shred1, there isn't much of a story to tell about Don and David Arden, they were sued successfully over non payment in regards to the BOO album, so in that regard why would Bob keep bringing it up, that part, at least, is done with, finished. Bob has put that to bed. The continuing royalties for the BOO album however, were, after Sharon became the manager, suppose to passed onto Bob and Lee, and never were. So that IS still an unpaid debt, likewise the DOAM royalties. But that is no longer and issue with Don and David, it's an issue with Sharon.

In a nut shell.......Don And David don't owe Bob anything anymore, Sharon does.

I don't see anything misleading about it............making a bold, concise statement about something, however, isn't something that can then be open to interpretation, or double meanings, ....what is said, is said, and taken, by most people, at face value, which can be very misleading to those who don't know any different.
User avatar
The Flying Dutchman
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3681
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 4:03 pm
Location: Gotham City

Re: New Sarzo interview 2012

Post by The Flying Dutchman »

shred1 wrote:And if Bob did get paid, as many here have confirmed, then what the f**k is he still bitching about?
Bob did get 'writing' royalties but he never got royalties for his actual playing on the first 2 albums, the so called 'performance' royalties. To deal with that $haron erased Bob's bass playing on Blizzard & Diary. :wink:
The winner of the rat race is still a rat.
rokket
Madman
Posts: 407
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:45 am

Re: New Sarzo interview 2012

Post by rokket »

The Flying Dutchman wrote:
shred1 wrote:And if Bob did get paid, as many here have confirmed, then what the f**k is he still bitching about?
Bob did get 'writing' royalties but he never got royalties for his actual playing on the first 2 albums, the so called 'performance' royalties. To deal with that $haron erased Bob's bass playing on Blizzard & Diary. :wink:
Pretty much it. It doesn't matter which way it's looked at, you can say Bob was naive, a poor business man, too trusting, made bad decisions, should have known better....etc...etc....the bottom line is he, and Lee, were ripped off by Sharon and Ozzy and are owed a lot of money that they will most likely never see. To try and turn the situation around and make it Bob and Lee's fault that Sharon and Ozzy are in no way to blame, is just madness.

Isn't it a shame that it's ended up this way. Wouldn't it have been awesome to see Ozzy, Bob, Lee, Lindsay (is he still alive? I don't know.) and Don, together at Ridge Farm, remembering Randy, AND even playing at Ridge Farm with a couple of guest guitarists in Randy's honor and had that with the Box Set.

More than that, with guest guitarists doing a few live shows, playing BOO and DOAMM, from start to finish..........would have been magical.

What a shame it'll never happen.
User avatar
shred1
Madman
Posts: 340
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:24 am

Re: New Sarzo interview 2012

Post by shred1 »

From Bob's website:
Sharon made up with her father who signed an affidavit saying that Lee and I had offered to bribe and pay him to be a witness for us, which of course we most certainly had not. The same judge who had previously judged our case as having merit, announced that now we didn't have a case. Our lawyers went to the Appeals Court which denied our case a hearing and then the same thing happened when they tried the Supreme Court.

Yeah, Don Arden had nothing to do with Bob getting screwed.

Further to the 'word' of any of the Ardens, read Bernie Torme's account of what his supposed fee was to be on that tour. David Arden says one thing, Sharon another, upon his arrival in the States. On it goes. This is the way the Ardens do business, and Bob KNEW that.

I have already seen and heard Bob and Lee get together with a known guitarist to perform Blizzard classics - that was Living Loud.
User avatar
RhoadsRockPhotographer
Cool Member
Posts: 247
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: New Sarzo interview 2012

Post by RhoadsRockPhotographer »

Tito wrote:guys relax let me give my thoughts on this..remember rudy is cuban,so am i...what happens sometimes when talkin in english your thinkin spanish and it comes out in english but your thinkin in spanish...hard to explain
Image
"Hey RUUUUUUUUUDYYYYYYYY, you got some 'splainin' to do!!!"

(edited for accuracy)
Last edited by RhoadsRockPhotographer on Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Tito
Mass Poster
Posts: 1687
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:45 pm

Re: New Sarzo interview 2012

Post by Tito »

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RRP YOUR A NUT BRO!!!!!!!!!!!CANT STOP LAUGHING DUDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
rokket
Madman
Posts: 407
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:45 am

Re: New Sarzo interview 2012

Post by rokket »

shred1 wrote:From Bob's website:
Sharon made up with her father who signed an affidavit saying that Lee and I had offered to bribe and pay him to be a witness for us, which of course we most certainly had not. The same judge who had previously judged our case as having merit, announced that now we didn't have a case. Our lawyers went to the Appeals Court which denied our case a hearing and then the same thing happened when they tried the Supreme Court.

Yeah, Don Arden had nothing to do with Bob getting screwed.

Further to the 'word' of any of the Ardens, read Bernie Torme's account of what his supposed fee was to be on that tour. David Arden says one thing, Sharon another, upon his arrival in the States. On it goes. This is the way the Ardens do business, and Bob KNEW that.

I have already seen and heard Bob and Lee get together with a known guitarist to perform Blizzard classics - that was Living Loud.
First court case, against Don and Jet -

Our case went to High Court in London in 1986, with Lee's and my victory resulting in a payout from Don/Jet. We subsequently thought the royalty payments would continue and that the erroneous credits on 'Diary' would be corrected; neither happened.

Second court case -

Lee and I found out during the 1990s that the Osbournes had bought the rights to the Ozzy Osbourne catalogue from Don Arden/Jet Records in July of 1983 and that from then on they were receiving our performance royalties from the sales of 'Blizzard' and 'Diary'. I sought legal advice from a law firm in L.A. who told us we had a good case and so legal action was taken to bring the Osbournes to justice. Ozzy and Sharon had been helping us in our original case against Don/Jet from 1982 and continued 'helping' us knowing full well that they owned the rights after July 1983. When they took ownership of the name and catalogue of Ozzy Osbourne, they also inherited the liability of paying us, which they've never done to this day.

Living Loud wasn't exactly the type of scenario I was talking about. Steve Morse, although a great guitarist, didn't do justice to Randy's playing at all, I know he wasn't trying to copy Randy's solos, but I would prefer a known guitarist who did. And Jim Barnes, although I love the guy and his family, having spent spent four years off and on in both his brothers bands, was not Ozzy, and IMO didn't suit the Ozzy classics.
User avatar
shred1
Madman
Posts: 340
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:24 am

Re: New Sarzo interview 2012

Post by shred1 »

Sharon made up with her father who signed an affidavit saying that Lee and I had offered to bribe and pay him to be a witness for us, which of course we most certainly had not. The same judge who had previously judged our case as having merit, announced that now we didn't have a case. Our lawyers went to the Appeals Court which denied our case a hearing and then the same thing happened when they tried the Supreme Court.

What part of that excludes Don as a participant? It is right there. He lied. Fact.
I think you are kinda obsessed rokket, a serious case of tunnel vision.

I am confident you will find a way to NOT address the point above.

You are willing to ignore the fact that Don Arden lied on Sharon's behalf, because it doesn't fit in with Bob's scripted bleating. Bob prefers Sharon as his 'villian' because she is high profile, which means his bitching is also high profile. No point including Don Arden at this point. Just not newsworthy.

Keep believing in your dream documentary, and let us say, as you have noted, we 'agree to disagree'.
rokket
Madman
Posts: 407
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:45 am

Re: New Sarzo interview 2012

Post by rokket »

shred1 wrote:Sharon made up with her father who signed an affidavit saying that Lee and I had offered to bribe and pay him to be a witness for us, which of course we most certainly had not. The same judge who had previously judged our case as having merit, announced that now we didn't have a case. Our lawyers went to the Appeals Court which denied our case a hearing and then the same thing happened when they tried the Supreme Court.

What part of that excludes Don as a participant? It is right there. He lied. Fact.
I think you are kinda obsessed rokket, a serious case of tunnel vision.

I am confident you will find a way to NOT address the point above.

You are willing to ignore the fact that Don Arden lied on Sharon's behalf, because it doesn't fit in with Bob's scripted bleating. Bob prefers Sharon as his 'villian' because she is high profile, which means his bitching is also high profile. No point including Don Arden at this point. Just not newsworthy.

Keep believing in your dream documentary, and let us say, as you have noted, we 'agree to disagree'.
Mixing up the details of TWO seperate court cases just confuses everything.

I agree ............lets just agree to disagree and move on.

All the best to you and yours.
Last edited by rokket on Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
shred1
Madman
Posts: 340
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:24 am

Re: New Sarzo interview 2012

Post by shred1 »

The above is in regards to case number two - Don was 'gonna help Bob', and this transpired in 2001.
User avatar
Isodee
Cool Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:33 pm
Location: S.F.P. of EU

Re: New Sarzo interview 2012

Post by Isodee »

stress2stress2 wrote:Hey girls, some of you are embarassing yourselves again. Can you stop your sniveling long enough to check this out.
A new Daisley interview is here....

http://www.rockcellarmagazine.com/2012/ ... osbournes/
Bob should learn some diplomacy in case he really wants to share the Ozzy stuff from his vaults. I'd prefer actions than words.
User avatar
Remedylane
Cool Member
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:24 pm

Re: New Sarzo interview 2012

Post by Remedylane »

Ive made my feelings known in past threads about the Bob/Lee situation.

As far as the main topic of this post, I didn't watch the interview.. But um.. Rudy was INVOLVED in the crash, how does that not make him a witness?? No, maybe he didn't "see" it. But he was in it.. Technically, anyone that is involved in an accident is a witness to it. Just maybe not in the same sense as you perceive. A witness in a murder trial may not have "seen" the actual murder, but maybe they heard a scream, or a gunshot.

To say that Rudy is trying to play anything up, or involve himself more is actually kinda sad. Don't you think if thats REALLY what he was trying to do, he would talk about it more, or talk about it every chance he got?? Im sure that he really wants to play up his best friend burning to death in a plane crash. Some of you people.. I swear.. Thats why I don't post more often.

Matt
User avatar
Isodee
Cool Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:33 pm
Location: S.F.P. of EU

Re: New Sarzo interview 2012

Post by Isodee »

Remedylane wrote:Rudy was INVOLVED in the crash, how does that not make him a witness?? No, maybe he didn't "see" it. But he was in it.. Technically, anyone that is involved in an accident is a witness to it. Just maybe not in the same sense as you perceive. A witness in a murder trial may not have "seen" the actual murder, but maybe they heard a scream, or a gunshot.

To say that Rudy is trying to play anything up, or involve himself more is actually kinda sad. Don't you think if thats REALLY what he was trying to do, he would talk about it more, or talk about it every chance he got?? Im sure that he really wants to play up his best friend burning to death in a plane crash. Some of you people.. I swear.. Thats why I don't post more often.

Matt
+1. I agree totally.
User avatar
RRFan4Ever
Madman
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:09 pm

Re: New Sarzo interview 2012

Post by RRFan4Ever »

Yeah, my 1st post in THIS thread! lol I clicked on the link, anyone else notice that the very FIRST thing said was the wrong date? (March 20, 2012 will mark 30 . . .) I'm always excited to see something new with Randy in it, especially 30 years after his untimely death, but come on now- it's March 19!

semantics aren't my issue, I take issue with the whole "wrestling" in the cockpit thing that came out with his book, cos I was already sufficiently horrified by how Randy died, I didn't need the added drama. (And no, I did not buy the book!) I try not to follow anything anyone says about a specific incident for any length of time, because it always tends to come out differently each time. Unless it's a deliberate lie, I don't see it as anything other than human nature.

And about Randy not mentioning Kelly G in that interview; I think it was it was a successful endeavor to not let the history of the band (they were trying to promote) spiral out of control with booze and guns. At least, that is how I prefer to see it:) It has been stated numerous times that Randy was "nice" so it's no surprize to me that he didn't want to get into all of that, when there was a lot more positive stuff to say.
If someone thinks that love and peace is a cliche that must have been left behind in the Sixties, that's his problem. Love and peace are eternal. John Lennon
User avatar
GUITARIDOL5682
Mass Poster
Posts: 4760
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: New Sarzo interview 2012

Post by GUITARIDOL5682 »

If only they could stick to the original 'what happened story'. That's why alot of debate happens on this board. Because we have to believe in what we all read. We can take sides and hate Ozzy for being a forgetful drunk. For everyone who doesn't know Ozzy's history we look and learn and take the gospel from the Prince of darkness / daftness :wink: . As far as the death of Randy i've made my own mind up on that one. The pilot should of had Ozzy on the wing bollock naked. But he was happy being a flash stunt pilot. His acrobatics didn't work out and he crashed and burned. When you've heard it from everyone there you do work the shit out Sherlock, and it works with everyone who sticks to the truth and keeps the story FRESH. All the bullshit and lies and prefabricated 'I've got the next book on Randy'. Yeah i think i'll do the next one watch this space!!!! :lol: :lol:
Post Reply