The Sharon Osbourne Poll

Bill where are you? I did your poll!

I'm here. You know my vote!!!

worst thread ever

Srsly even if this is a quote am really unsettled by use of the word cunt unless it's referring to a bloke.

that is some terrible makeup

JBR I did the poll as every place ive seen the story that has comments "Sharon Is A Cunt" and we decided to do a poll

The reaction on dffd and probably all the other boards was "Sharon Is A Cunt"

― pfunkboy (Herman G. Neuname), Tuesday, 2 June 2009 17:49 (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

that should infact be a poll

― pfunkboy (Herman G. Neuname), Tuesday, 2 June 2009 17:50 (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

poll w/ one option

― 鬼の手 (Edward III), Tuesday, 2 June 2009 17:53 (2 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

im sure theres x-factor viewers on ILX who like her. but someone do it to find out!

― pfunkboy (Herman G. Neuname), Tuesday, 2 June 2009 17:56 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

You're it Herm, i have no idea how to do it.

― Bill Magill, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 17:59 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Deciblog has a good take:

http://decibelmagazine.com/Content.aspx?ncid=306741

― A. Begrand, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:09 (44 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

from that
Posted 6/2/2009 2:13 PM by Senile Animal

Sharon Osbourne = Cunt!

and that has been what Sharon has been called on message boards for years.
he's the only person who seems to get a reaction like that.
Not even Lars gets that.

She's the only person who seems to get a reaction like that.
It was a typo honest!

fess up, you were talking about Ariel Sharon there

Before I hit 51 SB's for doing this poll, I just want to say IM NOT A MISOGYNIST HONEST!

"Srsly even if this is a quote am really unsettled by use of the word cunt unless it's referring to a bloke."

Good god. How terrible it would be if you were "unsettled".

He's just never like that word, that's all.

Bill if you're trying to be sarcastic it's not working, girl.

can we get back to talking about sharon now about how she exploits her husband,who is practically a walking zombie now , for all the money she can make off him?

does anyone want to defend her doing that?

He wd probably have died 20 years ago if Sharon hadn't been "exploiting" him?

Well she's sure made up for it since?

Based on what btw?

she basically controls ozzy. I doubt he even knows what he's doing.
You do know that "ozzy" is suing Tony Iommi?

Black Sabbath singer Ozzy Osbourne is suing the band's guitarist Tony Iommi over royalty payments.

The 60-year-old has accused Iommi of falsely claiming to have sole rights to the band's name which has cost him royalties from merchandise sales.

Osbourne is seeking unspecified damages, lost profits and a declaration he is a half-owner of the trademark.

Iommi claims Osbourne legally relinquished rights to the band's name in the 1980s.

The guitarist registered the Black Sabbath trademark in the US in 2000.

Equal shares

Osbourne issued a statement on Friday asking Iommi to "do the right thing".

"Tony, I am so sorry it's had to get to this point by me having to take this action against you," he said.

"We've all worked too hard and long in our careers to allow you to sell merchandise that features all our faces, old Black Sabbath album covers and band logos, and then you tell us that you own the copyright."

Osbourne said he believed all four original members of the band should share Black Sabbath's name equally adding: "I hope that by me taking this first step that it will ultimately end up that way."

The star's lawyer has disputed he gave up rights to the band's name, saying that even if the singer did make such an agreement, he took a major role in the band's direction and success after rejoining it in 1997.

Black Sabbath, who were formed in Birmingham in 1968, have sold more then 100 million albums and are known for hits including Iron Man and Paranoid.

By now it's no secret Ozzy Osbourne is suing bandmate Tony Iommi over rights to the Black Sabbath name. In a lawsuit filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Osbourne seeks "50% interest in the Black Sabbath trademark along with a portion of Iommi's profits from use of the name," according to the New York Post. Predictably, Iommi's mum on the lawsuit and the issue. But Ozzy? Not a chance. Whether it's Sharon Osbourne or a team of "well intentioned" lawyers pulling Ozzy's strings, the Brit has plenty to say and lay claim to.

"It is with great regret that I had to resort to legal action against my long term partner, Tony Iommi, but after three years of trying to resolve this issue amicably, I feel I have no other recourse," Ozzy says on Ozzy.com. "As of the mid-1990s, after constant and numerous changes in band members, the brand of 'Black Sabbath' was literally in the toilet and Tony Iommi (touring under the name Black Sabbath) was reduced to performing in clubs. Since 1997 when Geezer, Bill and myself rejoined the band, Black Sabbath has returned to its former glory as we headlined sold-out arenas and amphitheatres playing to upwards of 50,000 people at each show around the world. We worked collectively to restore credibility and bring dignity back to the name 'Black Sabbath' which lead to the band being inducted into the U.K. and U.S. Rock & Roll Hall of Fames in 2005 and 2006, respectively. Throughout the last 12 years, it was my management representatives who oversaw the marketing and quality control of the 'Black Sabbath' brand through Ozzfest, touring, merchandising and album reissues. The name 'Black Sabbath' now has a worldwide prestige and merchandising value that it would not have had by continuing on the road it was on prior to the 1997 reunion tour.

"Tony, I am so sorry it's had to get to this point by me having to take this action against you," the bat-eating frontman continues. "I don't have the right to speak for Geezer and Bill, but I feel that morally and ethically the trademark should be owned by the four of us equally. I hope that by me taking this first step that it will ultimately end up that way. We've all worked too hard and long in our careers to allow you to sell merchandise that features all our faces, old Black Sabbath album covers and band logos, and then you tell us that you own the copyright. We're all in our sixties now. The Black Sabbath legacy should live on long after we have all gone. Please do the right thing."

So, does Ozzy have a foot to stand on here? Correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't it Ozzy who was fired from Sabbath? Check out dB's Heaven & Hell Hall of Fame article. Wasn't it Iommi who continued the Black Sabbath name -- for better or worse -- while Ozzy launched a solo career? I don't recall Ozzy ever wanting stake in Born Again, Eternal Idol, or Forbidden. Those were and still are Black Sabbath albums under Iommi's vision. The only time Ozzy's cut in Sabbath meant anything (creatively, musically and financially) post-'79 was during the reunion tour, which was propped up by Ozzy's Ozzfest. Black Sabbath weren't the sole reason 50,000 people showed up at Ozzy's traveling sweatshop. One of the reasons, for sure. But not the reason.

Additionally, U.K. and U.S. Rock & Roll Hall of Fames are a joke. The music industry and fans know this. Because Black Sabbath is now part of the U.S. Rock & Roll Hall of Fame does it mean the Birmingham bunch are more important than, say, Iron Maiden (who are far more successful, by the by) or Judas Priest? Arguments can and will fly, but I doubt it. This bit about management representatives and marketing initiatives is also laughable. I'd ask for the whole story there. The devil is always in the details and I don't think the devil's necessarily obvious in this instance.

"'Black Sabbath' now has a worldwide prestige." Sorry, Ozzy, but you forget that Black Sabbath was prestigous long before you waddled up to the mic post-'97 to sing "Iron Man" and "Sweet Leaf" before thousands of screaming fans and a set of scrolling lyric monitors. Amnesia anyone?

"The trademark should be owned by the four of us equally"? That's not what your lawsuit is asking for. You're daggering for 50%, sir. 100% divided by four is 25%. Sounds like if you win this 50% you'll divide up the 50% between Geezer, Bill and yourself. I'll buy every Black Sabbath and Ozzy (yes, even the shitty remasters) CD twice if that scenario plays out.

Personally, I think Iommi has the easy out here. Stop selling merchandise featuring Ozzy's likeness. Album art-based merchandise included. Then inform Ozzy he can't sell merchandise bearing the Black Sabbath trademark or Iommi's likeness. For every piece of merchandise that bears both likenesses, set up a company to license to and split the profits 50/50. Simple. But this begs the question. What's the point of the lawsuit again?

and the 3rd comment after that story is what i quoted btw

Pretty sure there are a few old bands who manage to have ludicrous legal battles with each other without the influence of beastly conniving women. I know precisely zilch about Mr and Mrs Osbourne's relationship but I guess most of the people speculating about this know precisely zilch too.

completely horrible indefensible person for what she did to those Diary of a Madman/Blizzard of Oz reissues

also marrying your dad's client = teh creepy

That reissues thing was terrible

her treatment of Iron Maiden during Ozzfest was similarly unforgiveable

Simply put, Ozzy Osbourne and his manager/wife Sharon have perpetrated one of the most heinous frauds on the record-buying public I have ever witnessed. The new reissues of his first two solo albums, Blizzard of Ozz and Diary of a Madman have not only been remixed, but re-recorded, replacing the bass and drums from the original recordings with new, shockingly inferior performances from Ozzy's current touring bassist and drummer. These are two albums widely regarded as classics in the metal genre, albums fans have held near to their hearts for the past 20 years, and they have been tampered with. Tainted. Imagine if Jimmy Page replaced John Bonham's drumming on Led Zeppelin IV. Or if a studio hack replaced Johnny Marr's guitar work on The Smiths' The Queen is Dead. Or an Abbey Road minus Paul's bass, George's guitar solos, or even Ringo's classic drum fills. Why, in the name of all that's holy, would Ozzy do this? The answer to this question is more trite than you'd think.

Trite, yes. A huge mess? Even more so. In 1986, bassist Bob Daisley, and drummer Lee Kerslake, who played on both albums, won a court case which awarded them songwriting royalties, but to this day, they have yet to be given proper performance credit for Diary of a Madman (bass and drum credits were originally given to Rudy Sarzo and Tommy Aldridge, even though they didn't play a note). Over the past four years, Daisley and Kerslake have been fighting the Osbournes in court again over that same issue. The lawsuit has yet to be settled, but that didn't stop Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne from delivering what they hope will be the final blow. In a press release this past April, Sharon was quoted as saying, "Because of [Daisley and Kerslake's] abusive and unjust behavior, Ozzy wanted to remove them from these recordings. We turned a negative into a positive by adding a fresh sound to the original albums."

Of course, Daisley and Kerslake flatly deny the allegations of harassment. In a statement on Daisley's website, he says, "Speaking of who is unjust, I would like to add that after Lee and I . . . put our hearts and souls into the making of the above mentioned albums, our credits for our performances on Diary of a Madman were intentionally excluded and given to someone else. Performance royalties have never been paid to us." In several recent interviews, Daisley also claims that, in addition to his studio work with Ozzy, he is responsible for all the lyrics in Ozzy's solo catalog in the 1980s (something Ozzy admitted to in a recent Guitar World interview). It's clear to anyone with half a brain that Daisley and Kerslake have been dealt the short end of the stick (songwriting credits on the best-of comp The Ozzman Cometh are repeatedly given to "Bob Daisy"), but for Ozzy and Sharon to settle amicably would, to them, be admitting defeat. So, as is always the case, it's the fans who are forced to suffer.

so yeah I hate her, pretty much. Ozzy doesn't seem to mind so he's totally entitled to be married to her, do whatever, etc. I don't care, whatever makes ya happy Ozzy!

But independent of Ozzy, her public persona and her meddling in the music industry are atrocious

The disgusting treatment of Iron Maiden @ Ozzfest by Sharon Osbourne

" I guess most of the people speculating about this know precisely zilch too."

Actually, I know quite a bit about it, douchebag.

I forgot about the reissues thing, holy shit. I mean, Maiden can pretty much take care of anything (Smallwood pwns Sharon as a manager), but what they did on those reissues was a joke.

not a joke, but truly disgusting.

you know what I mean, herm. Those reissues are fraudulent. Shame on Bordin and whover the bassist was (the new Metallica guy?) for participating.

Shame on the lot of them, a truly despicable act.

Sharon also cheated on Ozzy with Randy Rhoads, didn't she?

Doesn't she also suck the marrow from newborns to extend her unnatural lifespan?

i have to laugh at the idea that in the couple of sharon and ozzy he -the alcoholic, drug addict, wifebeater- is completely blameless and she's the evil puppet master. Maybe they're both douches?

i dont think anyone thinks ozzy is blameless.

can we get back to talking about sharon now about how she exploits her husband,who is practically a walking zombie now , for all the money she can make off him?

― pfunkboy (Herman G. Neuname), Tuesday, June 2, 2009 3:20 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

and where do i say ozzy is blameless?

You are, I am certain, entirely aware of the implications surrounding both your and Bill's posts on this thread.

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee24/MaxVest/backpedal.jpg

Ozzy is a zombie douchebag. Everybody happy now?

i already called him a zombie but it seems dan mistook that for the word "blameless"

I certainly don't think Ozzy is blameless. I think this whole lawsuit is meritless, especially since Iommi carried the "Black Sabbath" name through the '80s and '90s, and also purchased the name from the other three and in fact secured the copyright himself. No way this doesnt get dismissed quickly.

all groups shld re-record the drum and bass parts on their recs every five years or so

great idea

The daughter of Don Arden is, uh, "a bit of a hard-case"? HOLE SHIT.

I don't really see the big deal about changing the re-issues. Makes it good for the fans who have to buy it again, that way they aren't paying for the same thing twice.

haha waht

oh man, no

they should just re-do the sistine chapel in MS Paint too

Not really the same thing though

I mean I don't know the whole story but it's just the backing tracks isn't it?

They re-recorded the original bass and drums using different musicians 25 years later in order to avoid paying the original musicians any performance royalties. And they are not "backing tracks"-the bass and drums are essential elements of this kind of music. Re-record your old albums if you want, plenty of bands do that (Gang of Four comes to mind immediately but I am sure there are others). But it's a fraud and a scam to say that these are reissues of "classic" Ozzzy albums when theyve been fucked with like this just to shaft someone.

Bill OTM

now I'm kinda wondering what these albums would sound like with just Ozzy+guitars (and synths, aren't there some synths on those records?)

Maybe they just thought the bass and drums could sound better. I don't see why it has to be a conspiracy.

Ozzy/Sharon lost a court case over royalties, to avoid paying anymore royalties they re-recorded the bass and drum parts 25 years later with new people to avoid paying any royalties to the original guys (one of whom actually wrote all of ozzy's lyrics lyrics)
How is that not a conspiracy?

perhaps you should re-read this

I don't know, that account sounds a bit biased. It's hard to say what the truth actually is.

Waaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiit Mr. Magill, according to the swine flu thread you are actually dead (of swine flu).

I think you are just on the wind up now
xpost

Maybe they just thought the bass and drums could sound better. I don't see why it has to be a conspiracy.

lolz grade A trolling here. care to name any other albums where this tactic was employed?

it seems the thread title has created some controversy
The c-word

I've asked for the thread title to be changed so that no-one gets offended by seeing it used on the new answers page.

I had no idea 'Cunt' was so offensive to Americans. Jim explained it pretty well on abbotts thread about it's usage here.

I also know the answer to this earlier post now

and that has been what Sharon has been called on message boards for years.
she's the only person who seems to get a reaction like that.
Not even Lars gets that.

Again, I had no idea how offensive it was to some people and it sure explains why so many call sharon that and they don't use it as much for others.
Obviously i know its the most offensive swear word, but its used so commonly here it doesn't really carry that much baggage, except that it's the only swear word that you cant use on tv!
It's certainly not used in a misogynist way and a lot of the time its used as much by females as it is males where I live.

Aw I'm not mad with you, don't worry.

I guess she is one of the few women to have said this word on non-fictional not-live US TV (at least once on The Osbournes) - hence the association?

mind you so did Caprice, on GMTV of all places (clip not found BAH)

Is she symbiote or parasite, that is the question.

it's ok abbott, i knew you werent mad with me, but now i also see why bill wanted me to do the poll instead of him.
I think americans might not want to live in Scotland though hehe

you should just start a separate thread called "americans are cunts" so as not to cloud the issue

The most evil person in the music business that I'm aware of. Fuck her.

Or if a studio hack replaced Johnny Marr's guitar work on The Smiths' The Queen is Dead.

You realise you are giving Morrissey ideas re: Mike Joyce...?

I'll leave that thread to you ferg
xx-post

that re-recording the old albums thing almost made me not say this, but:

without sharon ozzy, would undoubtably be broke, and probably dead, by now. she kept his career going long after ozzys sell-by date had come and gone, her copying the lolapaloza idea, except metal and under ozzy's name was genius of the most dubious-but-financially-prudent order, and the osbounes is the best show on tv ever.

so, sybiote.

stiffing bob daisly and lee kerslake is lame though, and rerecording their parts is a seriously douchebag move. how about sharon is a money-obsessed, high-powered businesswoman that's kept ozzy's career alive and at least deserves some kudos for that, and for the first season of the osbournes?

The phrase "jumped the shark" seems to apply.

i.e. SBoyle would have made a better job of presenting the Brits.

there's no doubt she kept him alive and truly loves him, even despite him trying to strangle her, but she does appear to be exploiting him for money, and that is wrong. I don't think drug-addled Ozzy knows what's going on and trusts sharon, i would rather she looked after him than making even more money off him with dubious practices.

"but now i also see why bill wanted me to do the poll instead of him."

Come on Herm. I thought the poll was about whose side of the lawsuit we were taken. Plus I said I am an idiot and I don't know how to set up polls. Trust me, I wasn't trying to set you up to look bad in front of my compatriots.

haha it's ok.

This thread is so cute, it's like everyone's upset with their aunt who has gramps in a home.

I saw part of her talk show once, it was on par with Dr. Phil in the entertainment dept.

I don't think drug-addled Ozzy knows what's going on and trusts sharon, i would rather she looked after him than making even more money off him with dubious practices.

yes, she should make her husband stay at home with a sippy cup instead of being a public spectacle he's always been and clearly wants to be. after all, he stammers.

I mean, if he's been found wandering in traffic confused like Peter Falk, fine. But judging from that awful variety show he's still cognizant of his surroundings.

I don't think drug-addled Ozzy knows what's going on and trusts sharon, i would rather she looked after him than making even more money off him with dubious practices.

How does this fit in with your "I don't think anyone thinks Ozzy is blameless" statement upthread? (hint: it doesn't)

"Tony, I am so sorry it's had to get to this point by me having to take this action against you," the bat-eating frontman continues.

The star's lawyer has disputed he gave up rights to the band's name, saying that even if the singer did make such an agreement, he took a major role in the band's direction and success after rejoining it in 1997.

Would have been funnier if he'd said "even if the singer did make such an agreement, he was so totally of his tits you couldn't make it stand up in court.".

It should say: "Tony, I am so sorry that I was lucky enough to join your band when you were single-handedly revolutioninzing rock music-can I have 50% of the money you made?".

Takes big fucking stones, man.

"i didn't know people found the word cunt offensive" = unbelievable faux-naif bullshit imo

re-recording backing tracks on something called 'the blizzard of oz' = come on. it's not berg's last work or anything. it's called 'the blizzard of oz'.

You're obviously not from the Duke Ellington school. Good music is good music, "berg's last work" or not.

You may be in the wrong place.

I'm not an ozzy fan in the least, but rerecording bass + drum tracks is ridiculous. I mean, how many people have "crazy train" indelibly inscribed in their heads? we're not just talking about remixing or punching in fills, we're talking about completely erasing the bass and drum tracks and rerecording them. that's some radical, invasive, unnecessary shit. and it's not like sharon osbourne has been coy about the reasoning behind it.

In 1986, Daisley and drummer Lee Kerslake sued Osbourne for unpaid royalties, eventually winning songwriting credits on Blizzard of Ozz and Diary of a Madman. The 2002 reissues of these albums saw the replacement of the original bass and drum tracks of Daisley and Kerslake with new ones by Osbourne's then-current drummer Mike Bordin and bassist Robert Trujillo. Osbourne's wife and manager, Sharon, explained the re-recordings in a press conference: "Because of Daisley and Kerslake's abusive and unjust behaviour, Ozzy wanted to remove them from these recordings. We turned a negative into a positive by adding a fresh sound to the original albums." Daisley and Kerslake deny the allegations of "abusive behaviour" and continue to battle for royalties owed them for their work on Blizzard of Ozz. However their case was dismissed by the US Supreme court on May 3, 2004, putting an end to any future potential litigation on the matter.

^ that quote is from wikipedia btw, and if it didn't accurately capture the osbournes' opinion on the matter you can be sure it would get edited in a hot minute

i am absolutely 100% certain duke ellington would have been a fan of the post-sabbath work of ozzy osbourne. i think he would have been one of its great supporters.

You, my friend, are an idiot.

Duke did a killer rendition of "Flying High Again" I hear

PERRY MASON!!!!!!!!!

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

can't wait to see the results!!

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

Bill you will be happy!

http://www.metalsludge.tv/home/images/stories/exposed/Osbournes/SharonOzzy234.jpg