81 of 82 people found the following review helpful
RE-RECORDED not Re-mastered - AVOID !,
This review is from: Diary of a Madman (Audio CD)
The second album from Ozzy after his departure from Black Sabbath, 'Diary of A Madman' continues in much the same vein as 'Blizzard of Ozz' with incredible guitar from the late Randy Rhoads, powerhouse drumming from Lee Kerslake and some inspired playing from Bob Daisley (who wrote much of the material with Randy and Lee). With another strong set of songs this consolidated Ozzy's position after the success of 'Blizzard of Ozz'.
Why then only 1 star for this reissue? You know the answer to that, the shameful decision by the Osbournes to remove the rhythm section and re-record the parts with new players, some twenty years after the original album was made! It is with this album that the whole dispute between Ozzy/Sharon and his former rhythm section originates; when the album first came out in 1981 Ozzy had already decided to replace drummer Kerslake with his friend Tommy Aldridge; the reason Bob Daisley went as well was because he objected to what he saw as a needless line up change to an excellent rock band. So in came Rudy Sarzo on bass, and it is these two musicians (Sarzo/Aldridge) who were listed in the credits on 'Diary', when they did not play a note on the album! This set in motion the dispute that rumbled on for many years afterwards.
Ironically, both Daisley and Kerslake *are* finally given playing credits on this new version, but as performers on the 'original album' - they then list bassist Robert Trujillo and drummer Mike Bordin as having overdubbed their parts on the new version!
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the dispute, the real losers are the fans who are once again being offered a dud album in place of a classic, and once again the buyer is not told of the change to the recording until he or she reads the inside back cover of the booklet - so an unwary consumer can be tricked into buying the album thinking it is the original!
I have already stated in my review of 'Blizzard' that this practice is, in my view, fraudulent, and in the long run can only do Ozzy Osbourne damage in the eyes of his loyal fans.
As with 'Blizzard', if you want this album I implore you to seek out the previous remaster from 1995; that version is easy to spot with the cover art being reduced and the word 'OZZY' in large letters down one side (on a dark green background) That version does not contain any extras but does contain the true classic performances by Ozzy, Bob, Lee and Randy, before the disgraceful decision to graft on new bass and drums, played by musicians Randy Rhoads never knew.
AVOID this shameful abomination masquerading as a classic album at all costs!
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-1 of 1 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 13 Jul 2010 18:13:26 BDT
As many will know by now, this album and it's predecessor 'Blizzard of Ozz' are to be reissued yet again this year (2010), only now they've restored the original bass/drum tracks. That is an admission from the Osbournes that the 'fresh sound' added to the 2002 versions wasn't quite as fresh as they claimed. It is also an admission that those two so-called 'session musicians' (Daisley / Kerslake) were rather more fundamental to the recordings than the misguided judge who ruled against them believed. Leaving aside the dispute that brought about that debacle and the fact that neither Bob nor Lee will gain from this latest reissue, at least any fans Ozzy has left will get the chance to hear the albums as originally intended. However, I stand by my own viewpoint, I have never bought anything with Ozzy's name on it since those ill-advised 2002 'reissues', and will never again. Still got my 1995 versions and intend to stick with them!
‹ Previous 1 Next ›