Is Metallica much more popular than Iron Maiden in the USA and why?

[The King in Crimson]

Yeah, but the British are weird.

Yes, they have good taste.

j/k I do like Metallica, but they ain't no Maiden to me.

I think Metallica's success really comes down to (as others have said) 1) The Black Album and 2) It's release at just the right time. The Black Album was massive, and I don't think Maiden ever had an album that was comparable to it at all

[TAC]

As far as the t shirt debate, I spent 5 days in Disney World last week.
Metallica shirts-3
Maiden shirts-0

There was one Saxon shirt! (it was mine)

And one UFO shirt! (Mine too)

[Setlist Scotty]

Tim, you forgot to include "There were three Winger shirts (they were mine too)"!   

[TAC]

Tim, you forgot to include "There were three Winger shirts (they were mine too)"!   

Actually I had on my Winger shorts!

[KevShmev]

Over your David Lee Roth assless chaps, amirite?

[TAC]

Over your David Lee Roth assless chaps, amirite?

There's only so much you can pack on a carry on!

[WildRanger]

I can't speak for any other cities in the US, but I know in Milwaukee, back in 1988 they started playing One regularly, and over time other songs from their catalog were added. Then, when the black album hit, it was all over the radio. And when Until It Sleeps was released, they were playing it every freakin' hour (terrible song, BTW).

I don't recall *ever* hearing a single Iron Maiden song ever being played on the radio. So I think that's the key right there. Metallica got tons of airplay and Maiden got little to none. Of course, the fact that Metallica went in a more commercial direction in the 90s and Maiden losing Bruce were no doubt contributing factors. But I'd still hold radio as the real key.

Do any Metallica songs from the 80's (thrash metal songs) get radio airplay in the US today?

[ZirconBlue]

I can't speak for any other cities in the US, but I know in Milwaukee, back in 1988 they started playing One regularly, and over time other songs from their catalog were added. Then, when the black album hit, it was all over the radio. And when Until It Sleeps was released, they were playing it every freakin' hour (terrible song, BTW).

I don't recall *ever* hearing a single Iron Maiden song ever being played on the radio. So I think that's the key right there. Metallica got tons of airplay and Maiden got little to none. Of course, the fact that Metallica went in a more commercial direction in the 90s and Maiden losing Bruce were no doubt contributing factors. But I'd still hold radio as the real key.

Do any Metallica songs from the 80's (thrash metal songs) get radio airplay in the US today?

I hear these on "Classic Rock" stations fairly often:


For Whom the Bell Tolls
Fade to Black
Master of Puppets
One

[Grappler]

Do any Metallica songs from the 80's (thrash metal songs) get radio airplay in the US today?

Off the top of my head, I've heard the following songs on either current/hard rock radio or classic rock radio in Chicago, not counting specialty shows (i.e. late night, 'Mandatory Metallica' blocks, etc.).

Ride the Lightning
For Whom the Bell Tolls
Fade to Black
Master of Puppets
Welcome Home (Sanitarium)
Harvester of Sorrow
One

[hefdaddy42]

I can't speak for any other cities in the US, but I know in Milwaukee, back in 1988 they started playing One regularly, and over time other songs from their catalog were added. Then, when the black album hit, it was all over the radio. And when Until It Sleeps was released, they were playing it every freakin' hour (terrible song, BTW).

I don't recall *ever* hearing a single Iron Maiden song ever being played on the radio. So I think that's the key right there. Metallica got tons of airplay and Maiden got little to none. Of course, the fact that Metallica went in a more commercial direction in the 90s and Maiden losing Bruce were no doubt contributing factors. But I'd still hold radio as the real key.

Do any Metallica songs from the 80's (thrash metal songs) get radio airplay in the US today?

I hear these on "Classic Rock" stations fairly often:


For Whom the Bell Tolls
Fade to Black
Master of Puppets
One

Same here.

Also, I am 47 years old and have never in my life heard Iron Maiden on the radio.

Iron Maiden is very popular here in the States among metal fans, especially of a certain age.  But Metallica transcends the boundaries of just metal fans.  They are popular among fans of many music genres. 

[WildRanger]

I can't speak for any other cities in the US, but I know in Milwaukee, back in 1988 they started playing One regularly, and over time other songs from their catalog were added. Then, when the black album hit, it was all over the radio. And when Until It Sleeps was released, they were playing it every freakin' hour (terrible song, BTW).

I don't recall *ever* hearing a single Iron Maiden song ever being played on the radio. So I think that's the key right there. Metallica got tons of airplay and Maiden got little to none. Of course, the fact that Metallica went in a more commercial direction in the 90s and Maiden losing Bruce were no doubt contributing factors. But I'd still hold radio as the real key.

Do any Metallica songs from the 80's (thrash metal songs) get radio airplay in the US today?

I hear these on "Classic Rock" stations fairly often:


For Whom the Bell Tolls
Fade to Black
Master of Puppets
One

Same here.

Also, I am 47 years old and have never in my life heard Iron Maiden on the radio.

Iron Maiden is very popular here in the States among metal fans, especially of a certain age.  But Metallica transcends the boundaries of just metal fans.  They are popular among fans of many music genres.

You mean even the tunes from their 80's thrash metal period are popular among the mass of non-metal fans, not only the hits from the Black album (and onwards)? More popular than 80's Maiden tunes as Run to the Hills, Number of the Beast, Hallowed be thy Name, The Trooper, Flight of Icarus, Aces High, 11:58, Wasted Years?

[pg1067]

Do any Metallica songs from the 80's (thrash metal songs) get radio airplay in the US today?

I haven't regularly listened to music radio in probably two decades, but I would guess that there are stations that have dedicated metal shows that play stuff like Fade to Black, MoP, Sanitarium and One (and maybe a couple others).

Also, I am 47 years old and have never in my life heard Iron Maiden on the radio.

Back in the day (i.e., from the mid-80s to the mid-90s). Maiden was probably more common than Metallica on stations in Southern California (KMET, KNAC and, to a lesser extent, KLOS).  In particular, Flight of Icarus, The Trooper, Aces High and Two Minutes to Midnight were in heavy rotation during the Powerslave album cycle and tour.  That started changing around the time the Black Album was released and Bruce left Maiden.

You mean even the tunes from their 80's thrash metal period are popular among the mass of non-metal fans, not only the hits from the Black album (and onwards)? More popular than 80's Maiden tunes as Run to the Hills, Number of the Beast, Hallowed be thy Name, The Trooper, Flight of Icarus, Aces High, 11:58, Wasted Years?

There's no available survey material, but I would imagine that a decent chunk of the folks who show up at Metallica concerts only know the "hits" from the pre-Black Album era.  Starting with the Black Album, Metallica gained a lot of "non-traditional" fans.  Around the same time, Maiden lost a lot of momentum as a result of two albums (NPFTD and FOTD) that were not as well received as the prior catalog, the rise of grunge, and the loss of Bruce Dickinson.  Even after Bruce returned, Maiden has never regained the status it enjoyed in the 80s.  Even though the five "reunion era" albums have charted well in the U.S. (and, in fact, the three most recent albums are the band's highest charting albums in the U.S.), none of them has achieved "Gold" status in the U.S.

[425]

You mean even the tunes from their 80's thrash metal period are popular among the mass of non-metal fans, not only the hits from the Black album (and onwards)? More popular than 80's Maiden tunes as Run to the Hills, Number of the Beast, Hallowed be thy Name, The Trooper, Flight of Icarus, Aces High, 11:58, Wasted Years?

Yes, absolutely. I'm from a younger generation of Americans (born in the 90s), and, though neither band's 80s catalog is particularly well-known among people my age, I have a vastly greater chance of talking to someone my age who is familiar with For Whom the Bell Tolls, Master of Puppets or One than Run to the Hills, The Trooper or Aces High.

[hefdaddy42]

I can't speak for any other cities in the US, but I know in Milwaukee, back in 1988 they started playing One regularly, and over time other songs from their catalog were added. Then, when the black album hit, it was all over the radio. And when Until It Sleeps was released, they were playing it every freakin' hour (terrible song, BTW).

I don't recall *ever* hearing a single Iron Maiden song ever being played on the radio. So I think that's the key right there. Metallica got tons of airplay and Maiden got little to none. Of course, the fact that Metallica went in a more commercial direction in the 90s and Maiden losing Bruce were no doubt contributing factors. But I'd still hold radio as the real key.

Do any Metallica songs from the 80's (thrash metal songs) get radio airplay in the US today?

I hear these on "Classic Rock" stations fairly often:


For Whom the Bell Tolls
Fade to Black
Master of Puppets
One

Same here.

Also, I am 47 years old and have never in my life heard Iron Maiden on the radio.

Iron Maiden is very popular here in the States among metal fans, especially of a certain age.  But Metallica transcends the boundaries of just metal fans.  They are popular among fans of many music genres.

You mean even the tunes from their 80's thrash metal period are popular among the mass of non-metal fans, not only the hits from the Black album (and onwards)? More popular than 80's Maiden tunes as Run to the Hills, Number of the Beast, Hallowed be thy Name, The Trooper, Flight of Icarus, Aces High, 11:58, Wasted Years?

Yes, of course.

[Anguyen92]

I don't think I have ever heard Number of the Beast or any of their big songs in the 80s ever until I saw the live version of Flight 666.  Prior to that, the only song I have heard from Iron Maiden on radio was Run to the Hills.  In comparison, I have heard For Whom the Bell Tolls, Fade to Black, Harvester of Sorrow, Welcome Home (Sanitarium), and One on radio a good amount of times.

[Stadler]

Same here.

Also, I am 47 years old and have never in my life heard Iron Maiden on the radio.

Iron Maiden is very popular here in the States among metal fans, especially of a certain age.  But Metallica transcends the boundaries of just metal fans.  They are popular among fans of many music genres.

I'm stunned at that.  Sure Metallica more than Maiden, but Maiden was not unheard of on the radio. 

My heart, my gut, says Maiden, but the reality is probably Metallica.  I've said this many times: they were on "Later with Jools Holland", and they played... uh, some song ("Cyanide") that was okay but when they played "Enter Sandman" to end the show, the place went nuts.  On that show, all the other bands are arranged around in a circle, and usually they sit quietly while the other acts play.  Here, the other bands were playing along, clapping, singing... it was amazing.  Nicole Atkins - a soulful singer-songwriter from New Jersey - absolutely looked like she was ready to throw down with James right there.  I'm being a little hyperbolic ,but even Sir Paul didn't get that kind of reaction. 

[hefdaddy42]

Same here.

Also, I am 47 years old and have never in my life heard Iron Maiden on the radio.

Iron Maiden is very popular here in the States among metal fans, especially of a certain age.  But Metallica transcends the boundaries of just metal fans.  They are popular among fans of many music genres.

I'm stunned at that.  Sure Metallica more than Maiden, but Maiden was not unheard of on the radio.   

Not on any radio I've ever heard.  Regional tastes, maybe?

At any rate, Iron Maiden didn't (and still doesn't) have "it" that made them transcend metal fandom here in the states and appeal to other kinds of fans.  Metallica did. 

I still don't have any love for Iron Maiden.  I've always known about them (I have a cousin who was a huge fan), but if Dream Theater hadn't covered NOTB, I probably never would have checked out Iron Maiden at all.  Just no appeal for me.

[Adami]

I've heard Maiden on the radio, but only 1-3 songs. Never any more than that.

Metallica? Tons. I've heard Four Horsemen, Seek and Destroy, Bells, Fade to Black, MoP, and so many more, not counting Black Album songs.

Its really no contest.

[cramx3]

I hardly listen to the radio, but growing up, the local rock station always played Metallica, not just the new stuff but the 80s stuff as well.  I can't recall ever hearing Iron Maiden on the radio.

[pg1067]

I can't speak for any other cities in the US, but I know in Milwaukee, back in 1988 they started playing One regularly, and over time other songs from their catalog were added. Then, when the black album hit, it was all over the radio. And when Until It Sleeps was released, they were playing it every freakin' hour (terrible song, BTW).

I don't recall *ever* hearing a single Iron Maiden song ever being played on the radio. So I think that's the key right there. Metallica got tons of airplay and Maiden got little to none. Of course, the fact that Metallica went in a more commercial direction in the 90s and Maiden losing Bruce were no doubt contributing factors. But I'd still hold radio as the real key.

Do any Metallica songs from the 80's (thrash metal songs) get radio airplay in the US today?

Random question:  What prompted you to respond to a post from February 14, 2018 and resurrect this thread after it was dormant for 19 months?  Not a criticism; just wondering.

[WildRanger]

At any rate, Iron Maiden didn't (and still doesn't) have "it" that made them transcend metal fandom here in the states and appeal to other kinds of fans.  Metallica did. 

Probably that applies only to America (things could be different in the UK and Europe though). Metallica went commercial with Black album and then they achieved the mass popularity. Iron Maiden never wanted to be commercial.
I've always thought that the Maiden album as Piece of Mind (classic melodic heavy metal) is a much more accessible material to a wider audience of non-metal fans than Metallica's AJFA, a very aggressive thrash metal album.

[Stadler]

I don't get that.  I guess I'm in the minority on this point but I don't think Metallica "went" commercial.   I think they were in a phase where they were changing it up and they did the 9:00 prog-ish-thrash extravaganzas and decided to be more concise and focused in their songwriting, much like a band we all know and love from Toronto.

Maiden never really went the "acoustic/ode to Skynyrd" route that so many other metal bands did (Metallica = "Unforgiven"), but you can't tell me that Flight Of Icarus or Run To The Hills or Can I Make A Sandwich are any less "commercial" than Enter Sandman.   

[hefdaddy42]

At any rate, Iron Maiden didn't (and still doesn't) have "it" that made them transcend metal fandom here in the states and appeal to other kinds of fans.  Metallica did. 

Probably that applies only to America (things could be different in the UK and Europe though).

Well, I'm only talking about America.  That's where I live, and that's the subject of the thread.  See?  It's right there in the thread title.

Metallica went commercial with Black album and then they achieved the mass popularity. Iron Maiden never wanted to be commercial.

I am not sure what you mean by "went commercial".  They certainly produced an album of great songs that appealed to the general public and sold a shit ton of copies.  Not sure why any professional musician wouldn't want that.

I've always thought that the Maiden album as Piece of Mind (classic melodic heavy metal) is a much more accessible material to a wider audience of non-metal fans than Metallica's AJFA, a very aggressive thrash metal album.

I can't say for certain, since I've never listened to it.  But I certainly agree that AJFA doesn't seem to be accessible to non-metal fans.

EDIT: What Stadler said.

[pg1067]

I don't get that.  I guess I'm in the minority on this point but I don't think Metallica "went" commercial.   I think they were in a phase where they were changing it up and they did the 9:00 prog-ish-thrash extravaganzas and decided to be more concise and focused in their songwriting

Not sure what your point is here.  First you say that you "don't think Metallica 'went' commercial," but then you describe that they changed from a less commercially appealing style to one that is more commercially appealing.  Isn't that what "went commercial" means?  Or are you just saying that they didn't change styles with the intention of being more commercially appealing and, instead, it just happened that their stylistic change happened to be to a more commercially appealing style?  If that's what you're saying, then that's a question only they can answer, but I think it's a bit of a distinction without a difference.

you can't tell me that Flight Of Icarus or Run To The Hills or Can I Make A Sandwich are any less "commercial" than Enter Sandman.

Agree, and you could add songs like "Another Day," "Hollow Years," etc. to the list.

[WildRanger]

you can't tell me that Flight Of Icarus or Run To The Hills or Can I Make A Sandwich are any less "commercial" than Enter Sandman.

Those Maiden songs didn't chart on American Billboard Hot 100, that's for sure. Enter Sandman became a big hit.

[hefdaddy42]

Yeah, it BECAME a big hit.  But saying that they "went commercial" implies that they did it because they KNEW it would become a big hit.  And that just doesn't make any sense.

That had done a lot of thrash to begin with, and on AJFA, they went in almost a prog metal direction, with longer, more complicated compositions.  Then, with the Black Album, they went with more concise, straightforward songs that were just as heavy (if not heavier) than what they had done before.  It dropped at the right time (as all such hits do) and became a huge hit.

[pg1067]

you can't tell me that Flight Of Icarus or Run To The Hills or Can I Make A Sandwich are any less "commercial" than Enter Sandman.

Those Maiden songs didn't chart on American Billboard Hot 100, that's for sure. Enter Sandman became a big hit.

Stadler was saying that the IM songs are no less commercial sounding than Sandman.  We all know that none of the Maiden material achieved the same level of actual commercial success or popular appeal.

[Stadler]

I don't get that.  I guess I'm in the minority on this point but I don't think Metallica "went" commercial.   I think they were in a phase where they were changing it up and they did the 9:00 prog-ish-thrash extravaganzas and decided to be more concise and focused in their songwriting

Not sure what your point is here.  First you say that you "don't think Metallica 'went' commercial," but then you describe that they changed from a less commercially appealing style to one that is more commercially appealing.  Isn't that what "went commercial" means?  Or are you just saying that they didn't change styles with the intention of being more commercially appealing and, instead, it just happened that their stylistic change happened to be to a more commercially appealing style?  If that's what you're saying, then that's a question only they can answer, but I think it's a bit of a distinction without a difference.

Nope. "Went commercial" to me means "Hey, James, hey Kirk, let's write something short and catchy and see if we can move some units, bitches!"   I think it was far more organic, based on everything I've read.   More like "Fuck, Lars, I don't want to play a 9:00 suite in four parts.  Instead of combining them into this bigger work, let's take this idea and focus it, then take that idea and focus that one, etc., etc."

So, erm, the latter.     But I disagree that it's a distinction without a difference.  I think that an artist's intent is the most important thing there is; otherwise, it's not art, is it?   

[Stadler]

Yeah, it BECAME a big hit.  But saying that they "went commercial" implies that they did it because they KNEW it would become a big hit.  And that just doesn't make any sense.

That had done a lot of thrash to begin with, and on AJFA, they went in almost a prog metal direction, with longer, more complicated compositions.  Then, with the Black Album, they went with more concise, straightforward songs that were just as heavy (if not heavier) than what they had done before.  It dropped at the right time (as all such hits do) and became a huge hit.

Thank you, sir.  That's exactly what I was trying to say, you just did it better. 

[WildRanger]

Then, with the Black Album, they went with more concise, straightforward songs that were just as heavy (if not heavier) than what they had done before. 

You say Sad But True and Wherever I May Roam are just as heavy as And Justice for all (title track), Battery or Creeping Death? I can't agree.

[pg1067]

So, erm, the latter.     But I disagree that it's a distinction without a difference.  I think that an artist's intent is the most important thing there is; otherwise, it's not art, is it?

Gotcha.  I disagree, but that's what makes the world go 'round.

[WildRanger]

I don't get that.  I guess I'm in the minority on this point but I don't think Metallica "went" commercial.   I think they were in a phase where they were changing it up and they did the 9:00 prog-ish-thrash extravaganzas and decided to be more concise and focused in their songwriting

Not sure what your point is here.  First you say that you "don't think Metallica 'went' commercial," but then you describe that they changed from a less commercially appealing style to one that is more commercially appealing.  Isn't that what "went commercial" means?  Or are you just saying that they didn't change styles with the intention of being more commercially appealing and, instead, it just happened that their stylistic change happened to be to a more commercially appealing style?  If that's what you're saying, then that's a question only they can answer, but I think it's a bit of a distinction without a difference.

Nope. "Went commercial" to me means "Hey, James, hey Kirk, let's write something short and catchy and see if we can move some units, bitches!"   I think it was far more organic, based on everything I've read.   More like "Fuck, Lars, I don't want to play a 9:00 suite in four parts.  Instead of combining them into this bigger work, let's take this idea and focus it, then take that idea and focus that one, etc., etc."

So, erm, the latter.     But I disagree that it's a distinction without a difference.  I think that an artist's intent is the most important thing there is; otherwise, it's not art, is it?

For example, would you say that Guns N' Roses had an intent to make a hugely commercial album such as Appetite for Destruction? Or did they unintentionally do it?

[425]

Then, with the Black Album, they went with more concise, straightforward songs that were just as heavy (if not heavier) than what they had done before. 

You say Sad But True and Wherever I May Roam are just as heavy as And Justice for all (title track), Battery or Creeping Death? I can't agree.

I say Sad But True is the heaviest song in the Metallica discography.

[Stadler]

I don't get that.  I guess I'm in the minority on this point but I don't think Metallica "went" commercial.   I think they were in a phase where they were changing it up and they did the 9:00 prog-ish-thrash extravaganzas and decided to be more concise and focused in their songwriting

Not sure what your point is here.  First you say that you "don't think Metallica 'went' commercial," but then you describe that they changed from a less commercially appealing style to one that is more commercially appealing.  Isn't that what "went commercial" means?  Or are you just saying that they didn't change styles with the intention of being more commercially appealing and, instead, it just happened that their stylistic change happened to be to a more commercially appealing style?  If that's what you're saying, then that's a question only they can answer, but I think it's a bit of a distinction without a difference.

Nope. "Went commercial" to me means "Hey, James, hey Kirk, let's write something short and catchy and see if we can move some units, bitches!"   I think it was far more organic, based on everything I've read.   More like "Fuck, Lars, I don't want to play a 9:00 suite in four parts.  Instead of combining them into this bigger work, let's take this idea and focus it, then take that idea and focus that one, etc., etc."

So, erm, the latter.     But I disagree that it's a distinction without a difference.  I think that an artist's intent is the most important thing there is; otherwise, it's not art, is it?

For example, would you say that Guns N' Roses had an intent to make a hugely commercial album such as Appetite for Destruction? Or did they unintentionally do it?

I think they did what they did and it hit at the right time.  The 1,000 bands that tried to make "their Appetite" in the five years after?  THAT'S someone who "went commercial".   Or the bands like Kiss (Carnival of Souls) and Def Leppard (Slang) that made their "grunge" album in the years after Ten, Nevermind and Bad Motorfinger. 

[Big Hath]

Then, with the Black Album, they went with more concise, straightforward songs that were just as heavy (if not heavier) than what they had done before. 

You say Sad But True and Wherever I May Roam are just as heavy as And Justice for all (title track), Battery or Creeping Death? I can't agree.

I say Sad But True is the heaviest song in the Metallica discography.

this