Not counting bootlegs or live albums with Black Sabbath, Ozzy Osbourne has released five live albums, of which Live at Budokan is the fifth. This album consists of thirteen tracks, three of which are drawn from his latest studio album, and ten songs that have been released in various forms time and time again. Ozzy gamely runs though his hits, taking time out to declare his love for the audience or to urge them to go crazy. Zakk Wylde puts on a pretty good show as lead guitarist, but then again, he did the exact same thing on Ozzy's previous live album Live and Loud, which contains most of these songs. So, is there any compelling reason to buy this album? As far as I can tell, the answer is no. Live and Loud had a better selection of songs, and Tribute had Randy Rhoads, but Live at Budokan contains absolutely nothing of note. It is perhaps the most unnecessary album Ozzy Osbourne has ever released.
I wouldn't mind another live album from Ozzy if he had assembled a collection of rarely heard songs or something of that nature. The problem is that once Ozzy left Black Sabbath, he hasn't really done many good albums. Sure, the albums featuring Randy Rhoads were great, and No More Tears is a decent release. But other than that, there's a handful of good songs, and tons and tons of filler material. That's why the live albums contain the same tracks over and over again. It's amazing to me that some people attack Black Sabbath as being irrelevant after Ozzy left, despite the existence of The Headless Cross and Heaven and Hell, and yet Ozzy has coasted for years on the strength of Blizzard of Ozz with no backlash whatsoever. If Ozzy Osbourne hadn't bit the head of a dove or urinated on the Alamo, he'd now be playing state fairs with Styx and Bachman-Turner Overdrive
Perhaps it's unfair to lay the blame entirely at Ozzy's feet. Sharon Osbourne seems to be running things these days, and from the looks of it, she cares very little that Ozzy's musical career is turning into a joke. As long as he can still stumble on stage to read lyrics off a teleprompter, and people keep paying for it, there will be little change. I believe this is a very sad state of affairs. Ozzy's voice isn't shot yet, and with the right musicians, he could potentially make another great album. But with the money rolling in from the endless re-masters and re-releases of old material, and albums like this one, why should he? Why try something new when there's money to be made from releasing yet another live rendition of "Paranoid". Why do the fans accept such mediocrity from someone who is capable of so much more?
It is difficult to look at Ozzy's solo career, the last 10 years especially, and not see a lot a wasted time and squandered opportunities. I think if Ozzy is to regain any sort of artistic credibility, it's up to the fans to boycott releases like this and demand that Ozzy work a little harder at earning our dollars. The next time Ozzy does a duet with Miss Piggy, don't buy it. When Ozzy's first two solo albums are re-released with re-recorded bass and drums, leave it on the shelf. Send a message that shoddy treatment of the fans will not be tolerated.
Zakk Wylde claims that the next Ozzy album will be much better than the previous two (actually, he said there would be no "gay ass" songs on the next album, which I assume in Neanderthal-speak means that he is promising the next Ozzy album will be a high-quality one). If that's the case, then I'll be buying it the day it comes out. But until Ozzy stops milking his back catalog with substandard releases like Live at Budokan, he won't be getting any more of my money.
Article comments
1 - Tim Hall
Sad but true, there's little or no correlation between the quality of an artist's output and their popularity. In many cases it's related to media exposure that has little or nothing to do with the actual music.
Which is why bands like Blue Öyster Cult or Ozzy's one-time replacement Ronnie Dio play small clubs while burned-out has-beens like the Alamo-pisser can still fill enormo-domes.
2 - gwynne
Oh yeah, sure... and I suppose Dio was thoroughly consistent these years. People got tired of listening to that pathetic wanker singing about rainbows, stars and dragons. But to get to the point... true, Live at Budokan is pathetic...
But ignoring strong albums such as Down to Earth in your long list of complaints just goes to show how conveniently selective many dilettante 'critics' can be. Of course Down to Earth proved your types wrong because his 'artistic credibility' was once again slung into your faces ...which could explain why it wasn't mentioned... filler material it definitely isn't!
By the way, the Miss Piggy duo never went on sale (and please don't mention it again cause Sharon might get the bright idea to issue a limited edition single of it)!
3 - TDavid
We bought the DVD of Live at Budokan and at least that comes with bonus footage of The Osbournes visiting Japan. The DVD came out at a time when the TV series was somewhat interesting. In the 70's, and early 80's with Randy for Blizzard and Diary, Ozzy had an incredible voice (go find yourself a [rare] copy of him singing Gypsy live with Sabbath), but any more vocally he's more bad than good. As Chris points out in this review, enough of the songs we've already heard, Oz!
I saw Ozzy live in Green Bay for The Ultimate Sin Tour and I was really hoping the band would play You Can't Kill Rock and Roll (has anybody ever hear him play this one live?), but nadda.
I, too, have heard the claims that his next CD is going to be old school, and he has dumped Sony (after they dumped Kelly) so at the very least it will be under a new label.
I'll still be one of the first people to buy his new release (which I've read is supposed to be out by year's end), but I can't help thinking that maybe Ozzy should just (really, this time) hang it up musically. He is not aging well.
And as for Kelly Osbourne musically? No, we won't go there.
4 - Caroline "PYRO" Ramsey
Listen, just 'cos Ozzy's gettin' older don't mean you can rag on him! So, what if you've heard it all before? If you're a true fan you'll buy it anyway. You really got to think before you take action. I know I'm startin' to sound like your mother, but it's true. You can hurt people that way. And as for the person that wrote this, he's no better than Simon Cowell. Just as much criticism here. I've been an Ozzy fan since I was 7 & in Ozzys defence I say all this. And about Zakk? Basicly callin' him a cave ape. Wylde's livel to kick your ass! But go ahead, say he's old & tired. But before you do, here's somethin' to think about... You like Paul McCartney? Well, he's older than Ozzy! Willie Nelson? Yep, older, infact hell of a lot older.
5 - Jim metal downuder
Ozzy has it still in front to realy make a good Cd with some new material & i agree new exposure is better than going over re-recording the same old tracks over & over. Ozzy still has what it take s J metal downunder
6 - tyler
cool
7 - sharon
wicked mon
8 - Bekah
although i was not that happy about another live album with the same songs, i have always respected ozzy and what he has done. i have been a huge fan since i was little and have to agree with pretty much everything caroline said. and although zakk is no randy rhoads, he is still pretty damn good, especially in a society which seems like it doesnt care about heavy guitar playing anymore. i didnt buy this album but i have all his other ones, and must say they are really better than you are saying they are. albums such as bark at the moon, speak of the devil and yes, even just a few tracks off the ultimate sin such as secret loser and shot in the dark are so underestimated. off the ultimate sin, the songs are a bit more like pop rather than metal, but listen to the guitar! and bark at the moon seems to be the fans least favorite album, but once more i say it listen to the guitar and the differnce between the songs. i have no idea how people can say they dont like this album! its great! now i dont care i think ozzy could be 90 and he could get onstage and rock out like never before, his age really doesnt matter to me. all i'm saying is that you should give him more credit for what he's done in the past, as that seems to be where all the great albums come from and dont forget he has a huge place in rock'n'roll history.