dreamwarrior

Surrounding oneself with big names is not enough to make great albums. Although the musicians' performances (including a certain Rick Wakeman) are impeccable, it’s the compositional phase that fails to convince. Apart from those two excellent tracks per album, the rest is just filler and nothing more. This is particularly grave in light of albums where there were no fillers. While Rhoads, Wilde, or Lee have enriched Ozzy's work, it is equally true that the Ozzy of the early '80s is not the same as that of the early 2000s, and despite always surrounding himself with musicians who significantly contributed to the compositional phase, I think that "rust" has gradually affected his compositional/evaluative abilities. I do not want to believe that the early works were entirely written by Rhoads and the subsequent ones by Wilde, but in each of them, there has been space for everyone under the supervision and final say of Ozzy himself.

I believe that making comparisons between guitarists is always unproductive, much like comparing Maradona and Pelé. It is the historical contexts that would disprove any possible competition. Rhoads was and remains a guitar genius, but he had a career that was too brief and he lived in the shadow of a certain Ozzy Osbourne, who remains the godfather of all the works in which Rhoads played. He may have contributed absolutely during the compositional phase, but in twenty years, Blizzard of Ozz will be remembered as Osbourne's first masterpiece featuring a promising guitarist who passed away too soon. Rhoads will always be remembered after Ozzy!!! Probably Romeo & Co. will not be remembered in the same way, but also because they will never have the opportunity to record albums that are so important in the history of rock. Wilde was also a disciple of Ozzy, but during the "declining" phase of his career, when works like Rest for the Wicked and No More Tears, despite being good, couldn't compete with the glorious past, and the subsequent production is absolutely forgettable.

It should be noted that often his live solos were later used for studio tracks. Essentially, he is on the same level as guitar.

Another note: let's not just praise the artists who win awards, because behind such assignments there are often power games from record labels. Without taking anything away from Rhoads, the issues surrounding the awarding of the infamous prize are well-known. Equally unreliable are the phantom charts drawn up by equally phantom experts. Judge for yourself with your own ears...

In fact, comparisons between guitarists from such different musical eras should not be made. In his time, Rhoads had as benchmarks and competitors the trio Iommi/Blackmore/Van Halen, while Wilde faced all the so-called "shredders," and despite his technical prowess, he does not belong to that category. However, it is undeniable that the artistic development of a musician is influenced by their surroundings. Naturally, if we were to engage in the sad and pointless comparison of who plays better, Wilde would likely win the contest, but in terms of inspiration, Rhoads, with the little he did with Ozzy, seems distinctly superior.

However, one must make a consideration: those that will be remembered are the magnificent albums by Ozzy Osbourne featuring the splendid performance of Randy. Unfortunately, the unfortunate guitarist could not delight us with solo albums to showcase his great potential without the supervision of the patron Ozzy. Randy Rhoads' star will have this unique insurmountable limit.

There is a famous interview with Malmsteen where he harshly (and also prestigiously) criticizes all guitarists, from Satriani to Vai, saving, among the few, Zakk Wilde. Rhoads' great gift was his ability to combine the gigantic power of a Tony Iommi, the classicism of Blackmore, and the acrobatics of Van Halen, but with a very personal taste that elevates him to the Olympus of modern guitar playing. That his legend has been "inflated" by his unfortunate fate is something I unfortunately have to admit. Wilde is different from Rhoads, even in his approach to music. While drawing inspiration from "riffing" like Sabbath, his musical soul is painfully bluesy, and just listening to him sing makes that clear. Imitating a musician's solos perfectly is not an expression of equality, especially since one must always be in the mind of the musician who created them first. But precisely because they are fundamentally different musicians, the comparison is difficult to sustain, much like choosing who's better between Steve Vai and Pat Metheny...

Remember to take the rubber soles off your beach clogs, otherwise, what are you, a bunch of tacky people?

A master of true Neapolitan culture. Listen again to Si piglio o posto, Patrizia, Il parco dell'amore, Inta a villa comunale, la cinquescento. A legend...

The first two albums are fantastic, but then they fall into monotony and repetitiveness, mainly due to the overwhelming power given to keyboardist Vitalij Kuprij during the execution/composition phase. He is a great pianist and classical concert performer, but when he dons the heavy metal persona, he ends up becoming a parody of himself. While his solo albums are jewels of neoclassical prog, when he composes for Artension, he inevitably falls into the usual clichés of the genre, filling each composition with monotony. He probably struggles with the song format... His first solo album, High Definition, in collaboration with Greg Howe, is highly recommended.