Bob Daisley's grail stuff.

[GUITARIDOL5682]

Yeah i think alot of these folk think we have just got out of bed and discovered Ozzy. I'm old enough to say to someone shut up, your being embarissing and WHY!!. Well thats when you have to start drawing pictures and explaining stuff. For fucks sake can people not see the writing on the wall... ??? Do we have to turn this into a poll and draw votes on the Bob Daisley... Who likes and Who ... Well i'm exhausted reading this thread Good night.

[Alex]

xx123456

[rokket]

Yep.....thats the way it should be in the music history books, because Ozzy knows the real story.

Don't patronize people. It's weak, insulting, unintelligent and in actuality, not a real argument.

It's not suppose to be an argument...!!! and it's not directed at anyone specific........you'll see it how you choose too.

I'm just done with the whole subject.........unless Ozzy actually said..."Look, I hardly had anything to do with the first two or three albums except singing vocals and coming up with a melody here and there, I can't the credit"........it'll be a never ending argument.....and Ozzy will never say anything even close to that, he can't.....not after years of taking the credit, he'd look stupid.

So we'll always have the Ozzy side and Bob side.......and those who choose a side,... us,.... the fans.............

[Isodee]

So we'll always have the Ozzy side and Bob side.......and those who choose a side,... us,.... the fans.............

To me it's not about choosing sides, it's about being as objective as possible. What bugs me is that people do take sides and believe unfounded claims without hesitation. None of us knows for sure all the details behind their fights (who signed what kind of contract & when, how and why; who said what to whom etc. etc.).

We know Bob's & Lee's side of the story in which in my opinion they seem to strongly exaggerate their role. I believe they got screwed in one way or another but conveniently we've heard only that side of the story that's in their interest and favour. I'd like to hear the O's side of the story too but we know that won't happen.

Too bad Randy isn't here to tell his side of the story.

[axeman_12656]

We know Bob's & Lee's side of the story in which in my opinion they seem to strongly exaggerate their role. I believe they got screwed in one way or another.

I agree!

[rokket]

We know Bob's & Lee's side of the story in which in my opinion they seem to strongly exaggerate their role. I believe they got screwed in one way or another.

I agree!

Agreed.

[Paul Wolfe]

The record company doesn't give the artists master tracks to f*** around with at home. Fact. Just sayin'.

Almost every entertainment contract on the planet includes the phrase 'in whole or in part'. CBS owns those bass tracks. Fact.

I don't read 90% 0f these threads because they do disintegrate into arguments so often. So, forgive me if these have been answered previously.

My questions for you are:

How do you know that the record company doesn't allow the artists to have copies of the masters?

What is your experience with entertainment contracts which lead to the 2nd statement above?

[shred1]

It is common practice. Why would the label give the artist the masters? Back in the day they would be kept in a vault at HQ.
Those master tracks that reside HERE are hacked. Period. Note that NO ONE offers their isolated tracks for sale commercially.

That is what the label pays the artist for.... possession of the masters.
Whole or in part....pretty common as well. Why do you think Bob and Lee got scrubbed in 2002? The 'in part' portion of that legal statement.

And yes, I have enough experience to KNOW that you can't use something unless all relevant parties sign off - that goes for music, art and design, or anything pertaining to intellectual property.

The record company OWNS the masters. It is how they make money. Not an opinion.

Ask Bob on Facebook if he possesses the masters to those albums.

I don't see John Paul Jones offering up isolated tracks for Led Zep III on his website.

[rokket]

If the tracks were being used for financial gain, I could see some quick legal action happening, but otherwise, I doubt that the record company would bother. It's a bit like having a few video's on your site, like Bob does, thats fine.......try and sell them on the other hand, and you'll quickly have legal woe's.

Entertainment Law is complex to say the least.....for example.....if I try and release 10 Ace Frehley songs, a mixture of different songs from different albums, I'd get sued.....but if I want to re-record his songs, play the instruments, release and sell the CD, I can....even though the music and lyric's aren't mine....as long as you pay royalties......Bob and Lee could hook up with a guitarist for instance and a singer and re-record any Ozzy song they like...ala....Living Loud.

[electricmombie]

It's just such a shame that Ozzy and Sharon are determinedly-ignorant to how integral Bob Daisley's and Lee Kerslake's contributions remain. How often do "session" musicians co-write MUCH of the material, musically and lyrically? When Bob and Lee were sacked after the recording 'Diary Of A Madman', Sharon and Ozzy were trying to trying to get in the black rather than the red, and they (wrongly) assumed that removing 1/2 of the songwriting and performing chemistry wouldn't be noticed. Bob Daisley is a much better bass player than Rudy Sarzo and Lee Kerslake plays more in-the-pocket than Tommy Aldridge does. I have a newfound re-appreciation for Bob and Lee as live musicians after getting to know the live 10/22/80 Chelmsford Odeon gig, as well as the 9/23/80 Manchester gig. Bob Daisley's bass parts play like orchestral arrangements: supplying a sturdy bottom end, but also filled with tasteful runs up the bass neck and back down, to accentuate the tightness of the Blizzard Of Ozz band. Lee Kerslake likewise plays with the band in the mind, as well.

While I grew up listening to the 7/28/81 Montreal 'King Biscuit Flower Hour' gig as well as 'Tribute' and the 4/28/82 Memphis Colisseum gig radio broadcast gig with Brad Gillis on guitar, the more I hear of Bob and Lee playing live with Randy and Ozzy, the better the band I think they were.

I mean, Try to imagine 'Blizzard' or 'Diary' recorded with Tommy and Rudy: these two albums wouldn't be what they are. Bob Daisley in particular has proved himself to be integral to Ozzy's stuff over and over again. Recording and touring for 'Bark At The Moon', writing for 'The Ultimate Sin', writing and recording 'No Rest For The Wicked', playing on 'No More Tears' and being in on the aborted sessions for the X-Ray project with Ozzy and Steve Vai.

Ozzy and Sharon are rich enough now. Pay Bob and Lee what they are owed. Enough of the bull****. Bob and Lee were and are as important as Ozzy and Randy. Chemistry as a band.

Ozzy and Sharon's selective memories and ignorance kept the 30th Anniversary boxed set from being more genuine and honest. Now that I have bootlegs of all sorts of stuff and the like, I don't mind as much that Sharon is a greedy wench and that Ozzy goes along with her, for the dough. It's just such a shame that all of them can't band together and do the right thing. Ozzy's songs have suffered from Bob's songwriting and musical absence. For all of Ozzy's claims of beinga solo artist, the Blizzard Of Ozz was a band. Ozzy is 1/4. Randy 1/4. Bob is 1/4 and Lee is 1/4. 'Nuff said. Peace.

As someone mentioned, we'll never really know what the real story is with the Bob and Lee situation.

At some point, Bob fell out of favor enough with The Osbournes where they saw fit to removing their playing contributions from 'Blizzard' and 'Diary'.

I used to think it was Sharon and Ozzy being the bad cops, but the more I begin to follow the commentary in here, the more I find Bob Daisley to be just as much of a quote and quote bad cop.

It's all crazy, that whole saga. Daisley probably was something of a pain in the ass, and they had enough of it. Who knows? Sharon may be shrewd as a businesswoman, but in retrospect it had to have been pretty bad to having to resort to re-recording portions of two of your act's most successful and revered recordings.

The chemistry in the studio and live for a time was incredible. For that 16-month or so period there. Two brilliant albums and a U.K. tour out of it. Now, it's Litigious City and whatnot.

There's three sides to every story.

[electricmombie]

(duplicate by accident. Thanks.)

[Paul Wolfe]

It is common practice. Why would the label give the artist the masters? Back in the day they would be kept in a vault at HQ.
Those master tracks that reside HERE are hacked. Period. Note that NO ONE offers their isolated tracks for sale commercially.

That is what the label pays the artist for.... possession of the masters.
Whole or in part....pretty common as well. Why do you think Bob and Lee got scrubbed in 2002? The 'in part' portion of that legal statement.

And yes, I have enough experience to KNOW that you can't use something unless all relevant parties sign off - that goes for music, art and design, or anything pertaining to intellectual property.

The record company OWNS the masters. It is how they make money. Not an opinion.

Ask Bob on Facebook if he possesses the masters to those albums.

I don't see John Paul Jones offering up isolated tracks for Led Zep III on his website.

Thanks for your response. I did find this which corroborates what you have said about common practices.

I do believe there is a thread around here somewhere regarding Dream Theater releasing individual or 'master' tracks on a CD (not being a Dream Theater fan, I don't recall much more than that), so, yes, it has been done before. Not trying to argue, just bringing forth information you may not have been aware of.

As for the reason Bob and Lee got 'scrubbed' in 2002, you bring up an interesting point. If the record company owns the rights to the recordings and made the decisions regarding re-releasing Blizzard & Diary without Bob and Lee, then all the anger towards Sharon Osbourne is completely misplaced, correct? In addition, if the record company makes the call, then they could release all the outtakes of these recordings simply if they felt such a release would bring in money, correct? In such a scenario, Delores Rhoads would also have no say in the matter... so we should be petitioning the record company and get what we want.

Again, I'm not finding fault with you, I'm looking for a different way to continue the conversation.

As for the tracks on this site, they came from Rock Band, and as such were officially released and legal to own, I do believe.

[shred1]

Radiohead, NIN and a handful of others have 'officially' released isolates tracks commercially, so us commoners can mess with the tracks.

Those Rock Band tracks are hacked out of the game. Rock Band would have paid Sony to use the tracks within its intended purpose. Busted out as they are now, that was NOT the intention.

As to the re-issues.... they didn't want to pay Bob and Lee royalties, so they they removed them - 'whole or in part'. Both the artist and the label have to bless a re-issue, depending on the deal. Lots of artists had deals that signed ownership away. That is why you see Motorhead re-issues every couple of months... they signed s*** deals.

Confident it was Sharon, not Sony who devised the plan to scrub Bob and Lee. Remember, Bob wanted a 'credit' for hitting the gong at the beginning of I Don't Know. True. And ridiculous.

Lastly, I suggested that one of the reasons that Bob and Lee MIGHT not have got they everything they had coming was the fact that the album Blizzard Of Ozz was only available for approximately 6 months before Ozzy signed with Sony as a solo artist. Not a lot of time to generate sales. Sales from this time period would include the UK only, as the album wasn't released in the US yet.


Sales exploded AFTER the 'solo' contract was signed. Diary came out AFTER the new solo deal.

This theory was dismissed out of hand here. I say it holds weight.

[RhoadsRockPhotographer]

Sharon may be shrewd as a businesswoman, but in retrospect it had to have been pretty bad to having to resort to re-recording portions of two of your act's most successful and revered recordings.

No. It's called being a vindictive, greedy bitch.

WHY did she do it?

Because she could.

[SLAGER]

Sharon may be shrewd as a businesswoman, but in retrospect it had to have been pretty bad to having to resort to re-recording portions of two of your act's most successful and revered recordings.

No. It's called being a vindictive, greedy bitch.

WHY did she do it?

Because she could.

Agreed. I dont really care about all that legal mumbo jumbo - I just think that re-doing it was an @ssh0le thing to do. Plain and simple.