One big rambling paragraph about how great the first two Ozzy Osbourne solo albums are

     "Blizzard Of Ozz" and "Diary Of A Madman" may very well be the two best albums Ozzy ever did. Correction. They might be the best two rock albums made in the 80s. Correction. They might be the two best rock albums ever made (to the exception of Led Zeppelin). Correction. They might be the two best albums ever made (to the exception of Led Zeppelin). I mean, listening to those albums again and again is convincing me more and more each time that they are rock and roll's true masterpieces. Each one is loaded with amazing songs- there isn't a bad one on either album. The music is heavy but melodic, memorable and radio friendly without being nauseatingly commcercial, enjoyable, lyrically fantastic, creative, distinct, unique and fresh. I mean face it- nobody is tired of Crazy Train. The radio stations play the shit out of it but you don't turn it off ever, do you? Because it still sounds great. The music on these albums is totally timeless and just so good that you couldn't get tired of it if it was all you ever listened to. They're a great mix of straight ahead rockers like Over The Mountain, political relevance like Revelation (Mother Earth), soulful like Goodbye To Romance, heartbreakingly powerful like You Can't Kill Rock And Roll and Tonight, hard driving like I Don't Know, catchily melodic like S.A.T.O, groovy and funky like Believer, sentimental like You Looking At Me Looking At You, dark and creepy like Mr. Crowley, Suicide Solution and the chilling Diary of a Madman. Of all of them I'll say I'm probably mostly a sucker for You Can't Kill Rock and Roll and S.A.T.O. mostly. And don't forget Dee. That's such a pretty, tasteful piece. The musicianship on the albums is particularly notable- the finest work of rock's finest guitarist Randy Rhoads. Ozzy's vocals are fabulous as well and just how tuneful and melodic the songs are without being any less hardcore is what defines Ozzy's style as his own. Okay. I'm done rambling now. Just go listen to these albums if you haven't already.

The Bar Fire Was Not Great White's Fault

It angers and sickens me to hear people- alleged rock and roll fans- calling Jack Russell and Great White murderers in connection to the infamous incident in which a bar they were playing in burnt down due to faulty pyrotechnics, killing a hundred people and injuring a couple hundred more. It cannot be disputed that what happened that night at the Station nightclub was an absolute tragedy and one of the worst things that ever happened to rock and roll, but in no way was it the fault of Great White, and the things that are being said about them because of it are being made in pure ignorance, because they are not to be held accountable at all. 

     First of all, it wasn't even truly a Great White concert. The name Great White means all the members of the band Great white- that is to say Mark Kendall, Michael Lardie, Tony Montana or Lorne Black, and Audie Desbrow, as well as singer Jack Russell. The band that performed that night was not Great White, it was Jack Russell's Great White- Jack was the only actual member of the real band who was there that night. Great White are being given a bad name for this incident when in reality only one member of the band was even implicated that night. How terribly unfair is that to the rest of the band Great White, to be held by name accountable for an event they were not even present for?

     Jack Russell himself cannot be blamed at all either. It may have been his performance that night that meant the end of the lives of all those people there, but it was not him that defined the circumstances which allowed such a great number of people to perish that night, and it was not him who lighted the fire. It should not be him who receives the blame. Jack was the singer that night, no more, no less, and everything that happened can be blamed on the other people there that night who did not make the music, but who were running the show. Let's blame them and not Jack. He had nothing to do with it.

     So who did? If Jack and the band Great White were not to blame, then who was? It was a lot of people who made this happen, let's name a few and their role and you'll agree that Jack had nothing to do with it.

1) The restaurant managers.  The club only had a seating capacity of 404 people, but 464 were present. The restaurant was past it's maximun capacity and so when pandemonium broke out, there was not enough room for them to move around. That's how they all got blocked in the entrance- there were too many people to evacuate fr the building and they couldn't all make it. Jack was not the one who let all those people in.

2) Daniel Biechele. The tour manager was the one who ignited the outdoors fireworks indoors, which flared some sparks which ignited the building. His impromptu pyrotechnics started the fire, not any actions of Jack's.

3) People panicked. Let's face it, humans are not rational creatures and do not keep their heads well in times of great danger. When everybody headed for the door they formed a messy stampede and blocked each other from the entrance. In no way can Jack be held responsible for a bunch of people acting a certain way, not according to rules of free will.

4) The bouncers. More than one person present at the event said that the bouncers blocked certain exits saying only the band was allowed through. Jack was not a bouncer and probably did not give these instructions, placing this blame squarely on the shoulders of those who were security that night.

   

     So have we straightened things out a little bit now? Can Jack Russell really be held accountable for the fire? No. He was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. The people who were running the show did a really bad job and were ill prepared, and thanks to their carelessness, a lot of people were hurt. It could have been any band- it was just bad luck that Jack Russell happened to be the one performing that night. So please don't go around calling him a murderer again and hating Great White for the incident. It must be hard enough on Jack having to live with what happened that night and feeling some sense of responsibility. Don't show any moregreat disrespect for him, just a little sympathy. It wasn't his fault not was it Great White's. It could have been anybody.

No need to figure Mick Jagger out... Or to read Marc Spitz's biography

     I understand that after a couple dozen books about Mick Jagger have been written, it must be hard to come up with new things to say about him so that your biography is unique and not just a regurgitation of previous novels. Everybody who attempts to write a book about the illusive Mr. Jagger has to search for a new angle to write about, to make their book the one about Mick Jagger to read. (Even I don't have the patience to read every book about him out there.) With so many books about available I plan on only reading the good ones.

     I gave Marc Spitz's book Jagger: Rambler, Rock Star, Rebel, Rogue a chance because somebody bought a copy for me. Overall it wasn't an unreadable book, but it had one major flaw. The angle Spitz went for to make his book unique was the attempt to figure out Mick Jagger. His book was essentially a long rambling effort to answer the question "Who Is Mick Jagger?" And let's be honest, that is not a question that we should try to answer.

     This book did little to actually describe the life and times of Mick Jagger; for example, what I like in a biography is an account of important things that happen in the life of one of my heroes and how that influenced his music and his life henceforth. This was pretty much absent from the book altogether. Instead, it gives us a timeline of the different faces of Mick Jagger, the author always asking who he truly was, but never providing an answer or any good information which could lead the readers to create an answer of their own.

     Mick Jagger was a very complicated individual. He changed his image and his behaviour and his persona simply whenever he felt like it, whenever the times were changing and before he got bored of himself. He always stayed current and so he was always what the times were, but he was always himself. That's all that needs to be said, isn't it? Who is Mick Jagger? He is Mick Jagger. And I'm sure Mick Jagger knows who he is, and he's the only one who really needs to know. So why do we still keep talking about it? I think it's time to move on to more important Rolling Stones related questions like "How is Keith Richards still alive?"