BIll Ward: No Grudges Toward The Other Members Of Black Sabbath

Black Sabbath's Bill Ward Has Buried The Hatchet With Bandmates ::Black Sabbath News ::antiMusic.com

 

That's great Bill. A bit late....but still great.

 

It's nice to read this. What's done is done but perhaps he can be involved if the boys do indeed decide to do some one off dates in the future:

Black Sabbath May Not Really Be Over Hints Iommi ::Black Sabbath News ::antiMusic.com

 

Let's speculate something here. Let's say Bill and the rest of Sabbath get together, then they can have a real farewell tour. Would fans be mad?

 

And Bill Ward elaborated more on the subject in this article:

Bill Ward on Making Peace With Black Sabbath, Selling Old Gear

 

I'm near the end of Mick Wall's book about Black Sabbath, and reading the account of the crack-up between Bill and the band, it just convinces me that they are never, ever gonna get back together again. Wall suggests that it all comes down to the fact that Ozzy was contracted to take such a greater percentage of the loot for the 13 album and tours and Bill just wouldn't stand for it. And according to Wall, it really isn't the money that's the problem but the whole issue of fairness - Bill still sees the band members as peers and was disgusted that the lion's share of everything was going to Ozzy and the other three would have to just split what was left. Wall doesn't go into details of percentages but it seems a very likely scenario to me. I doubt we'll ever truly know the details of the situation but I could definitely see Ozzy and Sharon saying, "We take 60% and you guys get whatever's left", and Tony and Geezer say what the hell but Bill says, "Screw that." Bill has always maintained that it was an issue of principle at stake and not greed on his part that drove his decision and I believe that.

 

Is that the Symptom of the Universe book? I bought that one a while back, but haven't had a chance to read it yet.

 

Misleading lede line. There's nothing in that article to suggest he's had any contact with his bandmates and thus no resolution of hostilities that involves them. I'm glad he's decided to take the high road, but it takes two (or four) to tango.

 

Yeah, it's that one. It's a really good book but I warn ya, the non-Ozzy years are not generally pleasurable to read about! To hear Wall tell it, things really fell into a shambles at about the time of Sabotage and never really recovered. The Dio years seem to have been exciting at first but even the creation of the Heaven And Hell album seem to have been very chaotic, and with a lot of drama going on.

 

True, this really isn't much different than what Bill has always said, which is basically, "I love these guys, it tears me up that we can't agree on this, but I wish them well."

 

I would.

 

I know less than you on this subject (even if you don't know all that much), but it's a touchy subject for musicians. I mean, back in the day, I'm assuming that they got an equal cut, but one could argue that most were going because of Ozzy or perhaps Iommi. Rhythm sections rarely get much attention from the casual rock fan. So, should it change now? I mean, certainly Ozzy would be the biggest part of the draw, so should he command more? As a former performing musician, I say "no way," but I can see the other side of things (and I did work in plenty of sideman situations where I had no idea how much the gig paid, but I got a lump salary which was some indeterminate % of the gross). Personally, if Ozzy asked for 40% and the rest split 60% at 20% each, it would still be quite inequitable, but I'd consider it. I admire Ward's sense of principle, but that's not something that the music industry has ever demonstrated one iota of understanding.

 

Personally, I can't see why after all these years of Ozzy being so successful, why he (or they) wouldn't have been open to a four-way split like the old days, unless Ozzcorp took a disproportionate share in financing the whole thing, which is of course likely. But I don't think that Ozzy and Co. insisted on a mere 40%, I think they demanded 50% or greater and that's why Bill balked at it. I imagine Bill would have been OK with Ozzy taking a greater share than the others - he's not stupid - but it must have gone above the threshold of what he considered reasonable.

Also, it's almost certain that Ozzy has always received a greater share than the other three for the past Sabbath reunion tours and the live album and video, so it's nothing new.

 

What you say is very much analogous to how the primary jazz trio I worked in for some six years worked. It was the piano player's trio and the drummer and I both worked "normal" day jobs. He booked the gigs and flat out told us that he took an extra 10 or 20% (I don't recall) for that. We had no problem with that at all and it was nice of him to be forthright about it. As you say, we weren't stupid and were glad for the chance to play some great gigs (I once ate about $100 worth of lobster tails and shrimp cocktail at a corporate New Year's party, got to play completely improvisational music for about three hours in the normally off-limits courtyard at the Elizabeth Stewart Gardner museum in Boston and got a nice paycheck to boot - and yes, for the record, I paid taxes on my music income as a private "company"). But at some point, things can go beyond what's reasonable. I agree that this seems a likely scenario for the topic at hand. (Sorry to wander, but folks seem to like musical stories here...)

 

This is supposedly the same problem with the Black Crowes and Chris Robinson. He wants most of the money for a reunion and the rest of the band as salaried employees from what I have read.

 

Now that would really suck seeing as the Crowes have at least six members. It's one thing to pull that in a four member group that stands to make millions but when you've got six, you're almost guaranteeing that the others can't afford to participate.

 

I just think Chris did that that to piss off his brother. He don't want another reunion is my guess

 

We'll have to settle for the Magpie Salute.

 

I get what you're saying, but there's a difference between being a hired sideman, and being a founding member of a band.

 

I love Bill. What a drummer.

 

Of course there is and I agree. My overall point is that I (we) don't know the actual terms/percentages being discussed. I only presented my own situation for context.

 

Always about money. But I think the bigger reason was Bill was not up to the task physically to tour. Lot harder for a drummer to get older.

 

The Rolling Stone article linked upward has a clip of him playing with Days Of Errors and the recording sucks, but from all appearances, it looks like he still plays very well. There was a lot of hay slung around before 13 about how Sabbath didn't want him because he couldn't play anymore, but that seems to have been a load of you-know-what.

 

But he passed on the album as well. If it had been a touring thing, surely he would have agreed to do the album and then sit out the tour.