Sharon Osbourne Condemns Planned Release of Early Black Sabbath Demos: “Against the Band’s Wishes”
Sharon Osbourne has publicly criticized ongoing efforts to release a set of rare 1969 demo recordings made by the musicians who would soon become Black Sabbath. The tracks, recorded under the band’s original name Earth, resurfaced this year when Jim Simpson, the group’s first manager, announced his intention to issue them commercially. What might have been a historical curiosity for fans has turned into a contentious dispute over ownership, copyright, and respect for the band’s legacy.
The recordings were made at Zella Studios in Birmingham, just months before Ozzy Osbourne, Tony Iommi, Geezer Butler, and Bill Ward officially changed their name to Black Sabbath and began shaping what would become one of the most influential catalogs in heavy metal history. Simpson revealed plans in June to release the session as The Legendary Lost 1969 Tapes, setting an initial July 2025 date. That timing, just weeks before Black Sabbath’s farewell concert and before Ozzy’s death, raised significant concern among the Osbourne family, who immediately questioned both the legality and the intention behind the project.
Sharon Osbourne has been vocal from the beginning. On Saturday, she shared screenshots of emails she sent Simpson, reiterating that the band does not approve of the release and has not been given access to the recordings. She emphasized that despite Simpson’s claim that the material was quietly withheld for decades due to copyright expiration, the band believes the demos remain protected and that their publication without consent would violate their rights in the U.S. and abroad.
According to Sharon, Simpson’s plan relies on the argument that the tapes have entered the public domain after more than 50 years. But the Osbourne camp disputes this interpretation and has been prepared to challenge it legally. In her emails, Sharon warned Simpson that the band would “take any action we can where their rights are infringed,” making clear that Black Sabbath intends to defend control over the earliest chapter of its history.
Complicating matters further is the distributor attached to the project. The Legendary Lost 1969 Tapes was slated to be issued through Big Bear Records and Trapeze Music, two labels Sharon said the band “would never have allowed any Black Sabbath product to be released” through at any point in their career. For her, the labels’ involvement underscores the sense that this is a release happening entirely outside of the band’s consent, and one that does not respect their legacy or standards.
The conflict has already delayed the project significantly. Retailers that originally listed the album for a July 2025 release have gradually pushed their estimates back, with some now projecting availability as late as February 2026, while others have quietly removed listings altogether. At this stage, it’s unclear whether the recordings will ever see an official release.
The email Sharon shared reinforces the core objection: neither the surviving members of Black Sabbath nor Ozzy himself ever agreed to release these demos. “As you know, the band do not want these tapes released, not least as they haven’t heard them despite you saying you would provide copies long ago,” she wrote. Sharon added that the group has always been protective of its catalog and image and that a release “against the band’s wishes” would trigger a full legal response.
For longtime fans, the existence of these early sessions is historically fascinating. They document a moment before the band became the architects of heavy metal, offering a snapshot of the formative chemistry between four musicians still experimenting with their sound. But Sharon’s intervention highlights a deeper question: who should have the right to decide how an artist’s legacy is presented? For her and for the band, the answer remains unequivocal.
With the project’s future now uncertain and the Osbourne legal team watching closely, The Legendary Lost 1969 Tapes has become less a rare musical artifact and more a test case in artist rights, archival releases, and the ethics of revisiting the past without an artist’s consent.
