I don't even understand what you are arguing any more because it seems to me that you are full of contradiction. On one hand it is the band of the front man band because "that is how it was", but on the other hand you never said so. I say that there is more to a band than the front man, including the initial comment that Ozzy was recruited because others had the musical vision for it. You maintain the position that it is all the front man, giving example how you dislike what Black Sabbath became post Ozzy, disregarding that Ozzy would not be what he was without the band that brought him up to fame. When I presented a well known and here fact checked case of a front man vs "the band" controversy from close enough the same generation of rock music, you made up an alternative history about Rolling Stones and avoiding the topical discussion about the front man status.

Hence the joke about the singer which I was fit because this would be the position that a singer would hold, though I agree it was unnecessary with the secondary comment of mine that came from frustration from the stated above.

I don't think it is a far leap though that the sum of this implies that the rest of the band members are irrelevant and replaceable, and my only argument is really that they are not and that it is a mistake to argue that they were because of how you subjectively may perceive or have perceived rock acts as audience back in the day.