Black Sabbath's 1970s Albums Come to iTunes With Limited Exclusivity

[GoCubsGo]

It's nice that Apple acknowledges that there is a genre called "Metal", but Black Sabbath is certainly not in it. They're Rock, maybe Hard Rock, but not Metal.

Oh I disagree fully. Metal is right where they belong.

Like the Beatles, by now people either have their catalog or they don't want it. I assume there will be purchases, but most older fans will have already ripped the CDs into iTunes. I certainly won't re-buy the iTunes versions but it is great to see them in the store.

 

[Razeus]

I still find it odd that I can buy the 256 kbit AAC of the "Paranoid" album for $10 on iTunes ($14 in Aust!), but I can buy the 1,411 kbit CD on Amazon for $5 and then rip it for digital storage at whatever rate I wish. Plus I can go back to the CD at anytime if I want to go lossless in the future.

http://www.amazon.com/Paranoid-Blac...783325&sr=8-1&keywords=black+sabbath+paranoid

iTunes AAC 256kbps files are better than CD, especially when using the Mastered for iTunes program.

 

[Brenster]

Can never have enough Black Sabbath in your music library, even the Ronny Dio years!

Quoted for truth. I discovered Heaven & Hell & Mob Rules more by the Martin Birch connection than the Sabbath name on account of being a dyed in the wool Maiden fan. Glad I did; whether Dio fronted Sabbath are considered Black Sabbath by the Ozzy fans they are two albums that should be in any self respecting metal fan's library. Ditto the Ozzy years.

Not glad to see the 'Who were the first heavy metal band?' argument is still raging 25 years after it became a moot point. (see also ZX Spectrum vs C64, Atari ST vs Amiga, SNES vs MegaDrive/Genesis, PS vs XBOX, Blur vs Oasis and every other tired playground argument I no longer care for).

Final point. if this is a US only thing then having Ozzy era Sabbath for sales in the iTunes store with decent mastering/data compression in MFiT is a Good Thing. Buying them if you don't have them already even better. Whether you consider them metal or not, in these albums is the very essence of metal. Enjoy.

 

[rctlr]

Bought Paranoid.
Still probably one of the best albums ever.

 

[JackieInCo]

Bought Paranoid.
Still probably one of the best albums ever.

For me, it was Sabotage. One of the most amazing things I have ever heard. I found an original cassette of this recording and then the vinyl in the basement of our house. I now have the CD. It lives on every device I carry with me.

 

[RabbitLuvr]

And why the hell hasn't Apple added Indie to the genre list?? It's by far the most popular among older teens!

"Indie" is not a genre.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

I still find it odd that I can buy the 256 kbit AAC of the "Paranoid" album for $10 on iTunes ($14 in Aust!), but I can buy the 1,411 kbit CD on Amazon for $5 and then rip it for digital storage at whatever rate I wish. Plus I can go back to the CD at anytime if I want to go lossless in the future.

http://www.amazon.com/Paranoid-Blac...783325&sr=8-1&keywords=black+sabbath+paranoid

And call me 'old', but I'd rather have the CD... There is something about reading the 'liner notes', and seeing the 'album' art that I would miss if CD's weren't available. I do still miss 'records', because it allowed for some very creative packaging and in the 'old days', sometimes you got posters and stickers, and different colored, or translucent vinyl...

Now, the CD's are often overproduced, over mixed noise... And reissued CD's are generally worse than the original ones.

But they call it progress... Yet I can put my entire music collection on fewer shelves... And how many CD's are still being released from analog masters these days.

And genres, there's a Jihad brewing... I got into a mild argument about whether Jimmy Buffett was country, pop, or rock. Really? And Pink Floyd, and Genesis too. Some groups/musicians define their own genre... I do find it hysterical that there is a genre for 'hair bands'...

----------

"Indie" is not a genre.

It's more of a classification of the production than a 'style' to me... With the purges of the 'unprofitable' artists that happened a few years ago, many established artists/groups found themselves 'independent' without a major label... It had nothing to do with the style of their music.

 

[Nunyabinez]

"Indie" is not a genre.

As far as I'm concerned "Rock" is no longer a genre. If you can put Mumford & Sons and Alice in Chains in the same genre, it has no meaning.

 

[milo]

It seems a little odd. Indeed. But what we are paying for is the convenience. The convenience of not having to order a CD. The convenience of not having to rip a CD. The convenience of not having to manage files on our computers. The convenience of not having to store a CD in our homes. 1-click. Buy. Listen.

Plus with downloads there's the option to buy individual tracks.

Those things are inconvenient?

With one you can start listening within seconds, the other requires waiting days. And don't forget that to get free shipping you now have to spend $35 at Amazon.

 

[MacGod]

Really - read a book?!

Ha - no. It didn't start until nearly a decade later, with Metallica (I think. I'm not sure when exactly other early metal bands formed... Some were right about the same time as Metallica.)

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Early Metal is the genre from 66-71 and encompasses a few key acts like:
The Stooges, MC5, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and Jimi Hendrix.

This spawned several other genre's including Hard Rock, and the Power, Progressive, Stoner, Glam and New Wave Metal genre's.

BS is considered a founder of today's metal movement.

Please research the definition of HEAVY METAL MUSIC.

I do acknowledge that it might be your OPINION that these bands are not the founders of metal - and truly they have nothing in common with today's Nu, Death or Black metal movements - but you would be wrong.

 

[hondo77]

It's nice that Apple acknowledges that there is a genre called "Metal", but Black Sabbath is certainly not in it. They're Rock, maybe Hard Rock, but not Metal.

Ha - no. It didn't start until nearly a decade later, with Metallica (I think. I'm not sure when exactly other early metal bands formed... Some were right about the same time as Metallica.)

There are so many wrongs in that, I don't even know where to begin.

----------

Led Zepplin metal? You surly are mad.

No, you're just too young to know that people were using "heavy metal" to describe bands during the 70s.

 

[RabbitLuvr]

As far as I'm concerned "Rock" is no longer a genre. If you can put Mumford & Sons and Alice in Chains in the same genre, it has no meaning.

I would classify Mumford & Sons as folk.

 

[The Wedge]

It's nice that Apple acknowledges that there is a genre called "Metal", but Black Sabbath is certainly not in it. They're Rock, maybe Hard Rock, but not Metal.

Oh give me a break.

 

[MacNut]

As far as I'm concerned "Rock" is no longer a genre. If you can put Mumford & Sons and Alice in Chains in the same genre, it has no meaning.

Alice in Chains was grunge, and that is a sub-genre of rock. But in general Rock and Roll is considered anything from Buddy Holly onwards.

 

[Nunyabinez]

I would classify Mumford & Sons as folk.

Yeah, nothing wrong with Mumford & Sons, but banjos in rock music?

I remember at one point looking for some new music under the Rock section and Mumford & Sons was the #1 rated album. I listened to a couple of tracks and I'm like "what the f, there's no banjos in rock music."

----------

Alice in Chains was grunge, and that is a sub-genre of rock. But in general Rock and Roll is considered anything from Buddy Holly onwards.

That very well may be, but if a genre is so inclusive that you can't separate out what you want to hear from all the other stuff, it becomes useless.

I doubt that people who are AIC fans are going to like Mumford & Sons in great numbers, but they might like Skillet or Five Finger Death Punch or Queens of the Stone Age.

And don't get me started about Daughtry, I don't know what that crap is now.

If iTunes is "the best way to find new music" then current genres need to be more narrow.

 

[MacNut]

Yeah, nothing wrong with Mumford & Sons, but banjos in rock music?

I remember at one point looking for some new music under the Rock section and Mumford & Sons was the #1 rated album. I listened to a couple of tracks and I'm like "what the f, there's no banjos in rock music."

----------



That very well may be, but if a genre is so inclusive that you can't separate out what you want to hear from all the other stuff, it becomes useless.

I doubt that people who are AIC fans are going to like Mumford & Sons in great numbers, but they might like Skillet or Five Finger Death Punch or Queens of the Stone Age.

And don't get me started about Daughtry, I don't know what that crap is now.

If iTunes is "the best way to find new music" then current genres need to be more narrow.

I doubt the little kids that surf iTunes know what the difference is between folk, jazz, country, metal, grunge, new age, alternative. They just know what they hear on the radio. Even Alternative radio is all over the place. Really there are 2 categories the kids use, rock and pop.

 

[curmudgeon32]

Does "limited exclusivity" mean "limited availability"?

 

[MacNut]

Does "limited exclusivity" mean "limited availability"?

It means it will be on Spotify next week.

On Tuesday the band and its label, Warner Brothers, announced that iTunes had started selling its first eight studio albums, along with three compilations. But iTunes’ window of exclusivity is expected to be short. According to people briefed on the deal who were not authorized to speak about it, Black Sabbath’s music should come to streaming services in about a week.

 

[AppleWindowsFan]

I've had the albums for years, legally ripped to my iTunes.

But it's about time. I wouldn't have bought the boxset if I had had the albums to buy digitally.

 

[tardegrade]

It's nice that Apple acknowledges that there is a genre called "Metal", but Black Sabbath is certainly not in it. They're Rock, maybe Hard Rock, but not Metal.

Ha - no. It didn't start until nearly a decade later, with Metallica (I think. I'm not sure when exactly other early metal bands formed... Some were right about the same time as Metallica.)

Mate. If you're not trolling I'd do a bit of Googling if I were you and gen up. Seriously both your comments are quite comprehensive metal faux pas. You might want to delete them and pretend that they didn't happen, or maybe post a "mea culpa" to save face.

Good luck. Peace.

 

[bradl]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Early Metal is the genre from 66-71 and encompasses a few key acts like:
The Stooges, MC5, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and Jimi Hendrix.

This spawned several other genre's including Hard Rock, and the Power, Progressive, Stoner, Glam and New Wave Metal genre's.

BS is considered a founder of today's metal movement.

Please research the definition of HEAVY METAL MUSIC.

I do acknowledge that it might be your OPINION that these bands are not the founders of metal - and truly they have nothing in common with today's Nu, Death or Black metal movements - but you would be wrong.

Better yet, he should sit down and watch the following:

Heavy: The Story of Metal

The guy goes seriously into nearly every genre of metal, from pre-metal to the split between the US and UK, NWOBHM, Thrash, Prog, Glam, Grunge, Nu, Power, all the way up to Metalcore.

And the one thing mentioned specifically is where it started, and who started it.

BL.

P.S. Black Sabbath is Heavy Metal.

 

[japanime]

I doubt that, Ozzy has been in the itunes store for awhile now. And given her love to spend, I doubt she would want to leave money on the table. I could be wrong.

Yes, but Sharon and Ozzy have full control of Ozzy's catalog. With Sabbath, I imagine she fought for a bigger share of the pie before giving the go-ahead.

Don't get me wrong — I admire Sharon Osbourne. She's one of the brightest execs in the music industry. And without her, Ozzy probably would have stopped making music (and perhaps even died) years ago.

Ha - no. It didn't start until nearly a decade later, with Metallica (I think. I'm not sure when exactly other early metal bands formed... Some were right about the same time as Metallica.)

Heavy metal — both the musical style, and the term itself, predate Metallica by at least 20 years.

Kids these days...

 

[rhett7660]

Ha - no. It didn't start until nearly a decade later, with Metallica (I think. I'm not sure when exactly other early metal bands formed... Some were right about the same time as Metallica.)

Heavy metal is a few decades prior to Metallica........

Lets not forget that there were bands who were "heavy" in the 60's and 70's that were considered heavy metal.

 

[bradl]

Yes, but Sharon and Ozzy have full control of Ozzy's catalog. With Sabbath, I imagine she fought for a bigger share of the pie before giving the go-ahead.

Don't get me wrong — I admire Sharon Osbourne. She's one of the brightest execs in the music industry. And without her, Ozzy probably would have stopped making music (and perhaps even died) years ago.




Heavy metal — both the musical style, and the term itself, predate Metallica by at least 20 years.

Kids these days...

Agreed. Especially when Hetfield lists as one of his main influences, especially when it comes to guitar riffs, as one Tony Iommi. The guy practically invented the riff.

BL.

 

[Old Muley]

And the first Grammy for metal or hard rock went to...Jethro Tull!? Go figure that one out.