DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Music Discussion => Topic started by: olliemedsy on October 28, 2011, 08:05:54 AM
-
Discuss
-
I like Metallica a lot, but the answer is Iron Maiden by a mile.
-
My answer would normally be Iron Maiden regardless but based on the fact that Metallica worked on Lulu the answer is most certainly Iron Maiden now.
-
I like Metallica a lot, but the answer is Iron Maiden by a mile.
Nick speaketh the trutheth.
-
(https://www.kirksnosehair.com/pics/IW.jpg)
(https://www.kirksnosehair.com/pics/IFMTW.jpg)
-
I went with Iron Maiden, but this is how I feel about it:
I think that Maiden has a more solid discography all in all, despite albums like No Prayer for the Dying, Fear of the Dark and Virtual XI, I do think that Maiden has higher lowpoints then Metallica has.
However, I do think that Metallica's best albums, Master of Puppets, Ride the Lightning and And Justice For All (for me) are better then Iron Maiden's best albums, Powerslave, A Matter of Life and Death and Seventh Son of a Seventh Son (for me).
So yeah, Metallica has higher points, but Maiden has a much more solid/better discography overall.
-
From what I've heard of the two bands, I find IM's material to not only be more consistent than Metallica's, but also having higher highs.
-
I like Metallica a lot, but the answer is Iron Maiden by a mile.
-
Metallica fo sho. Although I've seen both live, and they're both great. I just prefer Metallica's style of metal. But Iron Maiden are the better musicians.
-
One band has released 14 albums that range from good to amazing, with one bad album in the middle. The other band has released 4 classic metal albums, 1 pretty sweet album, and then decided to take a big, fatty dump all over their career.
In case you were wondering, I voted for Iron Fucking Maiden.
-
Maiden by light years.
-
I like Metallica a lot, but the answer is Iron Maiden by a mile.
-
Iron Maiden is by far more consistent, while having created equally awesome music, and they have never made me go "WTF IS THIS". And even though I like Death Magnetic very much, modern Iron Maiden is definitely far more innovative and progressive, plus not hurt by "MUST BE LOUD RRARGH" production.
So, Iron Maiden.
-
Metallica. Couldn't ever get into Maiden beyond a few songs here and there.
-
I like Metallica a lot, but the answer is Iron Maiden by a mile.
-
and they have never made me go "WTF IS THIS".
I don't mean to argue against the band I chose (and one of my all time favourite bands) but I just have to say it...
MAYBE LIGHTNING STRIKES TWIIICE
-
and they have never made me go "WTF IS THIS".
I don't mean to argue against the band I chose (and one of my all time favourite bands) but I just have to say it...
MAYBE LIGHTNING STRIKES TWIIICE
Thats a great song (and album).
-
and they have never made me go "WTF IS THIS".
I don't mean to argue against the band I chose (and one of my all time favourite bands) but I just have to say it...
MAYBE LIGHTNING STRIKES TWIIICE
Virtual XI is just inconsistent as fuck, suffers from some songs being too repetitive, but it also has one of their greatest masterpieces called The Clansman.
And it doesn't have someone talking and sounding like if he just smoked a 10km2 field of weed over hard rock/heavy metal riffs.
:|
-
This is my Maiden WTF moment:
Don't you think I'm a savior
Don't you think I could save you
Don't you think I could save your life
Don't you think I'm a savior
Don't you think I could save you
Don't you think I could save your life
Don't you think I'm a savior
Don't you think I could save you
Don't you think I could save your life
Don't you think I'm a savior
Don't you think I could save you
Don't you think I could save your life
Don't you think I'm a savior
Don't you think I could save you
Don't you think I could save your life
Don't you think I'm a savior
Don't you think I could save you
Don't you think I could save your life
Don't you think I'm a savior
Don't you think I could save you
Don't you think I could save your life
Don't you think I'm a savior
Don't you think I could save you
Don't you think I could save your life
Don't you think I'm a savior
Don't you think I could save you
Don't you think I could save your life
Don't you think I'm a savior
Don't you think I could save you
Don't you think I could save your life
Don't you think I'm a savior
Don't you think I could save you
Don't you think I could save your life
Don't you think I'm a savior
Don't you think I could save you
Don't you think I could save your life
Don't you think I'm a savior
Don't you think I could save you
Don't you think I could save your life
Don't you think I'm a savior
Don't you think I could save you
Don't you think I could save your life
Don't you think I'm a savior
Don't you think I could save you
Don't you think I could save your life
Don't you think I'm a savior
Don't you think I could save you
Don't you think I could save your life
-
Maiden, definitely. I really like Metallica, but their discography is not as consistent.
-
Metallica fo sho. Although I've seen both live, and they're both great. I just prefer Metallica's style of metal. But Iron Maiden are the better musicians.
When did this happen? I thought you were, like, anti-Maiden as recent as a couple years ago. Unless I'm confused.
-
Metallica fo sho. Although I've seen both live, and they're both great. I just prefer Metallica's style of metal. But Iron Maiden are the better musicians.
When did this happen? I thought you were, like, anti-Maiden as recent as a couple years ago. Unless I'm confused.
Was I? May have just been a polarizing argument where I went extreme (which wouldn't surprise me). I like Maiden, but I wouldn't say I love them. They're great musicians, and they put on a hell of a show when I saw them, but outside of TNOTB, I don't really listen to a lot of their stuff all too much.
-
Maiden by light years.
-
Metallica fo sho. Although I've seen both live, and they're both great. I just prefer Metallica's style of metal. But Iron Maiden are the better musicians.
When did this happen? I thought you were, like, anti-Maiden as recent as a couple years ago. Unless I'm confused.
Was I? May have just been a polarizing argument where I went extreme (which wouldn't surprise me). I like Maiden, but I wouldn't say I love them. They're great musicians, and they put on a hell of a show when I saw them, but outside of TNOTB, I don't really listen to a lot of their stuff all too much.
Heh. Yeah, I totally know what you mean. I think everyone's guilty of that from time to time. When we were arguing, I was probably polarizing my hatred of metallica :P
Like both, but Maiden is the winner. They've never sucked as hard, IMO. And I just like it more. Glad to hear you are a Maiden fan, though!
-
For me its all a matter of Eras
Iron Maiden 1980-1982
Metallica 1983-1988
After 1988 didn't really care for what either band released .....Maiden just became to repetitive (and still are to this day) ...and Metallica sold their soul to MTV
-
How is this even a question?
-
It was tough one for me...I voted "can't decide"
I still can't.
It's kind of like a Rolling Stones vs. Beatles thing....one has longevity...the other sort of died off after some great discs....
-
Iron Maiden 1980-1988
Fixed.
And you can add 2000-present if you wanna. :biggrin:
-
Maiden. No contest. Maiden has had a more consistent career, and their songs are just better, IMO. Plus they never made an album with Lou Reed.
-
I think that Maiden has a more solid discography all in all, despite albums like No Prayer for the Dying, Fear of the Dark and Virtual XI, I do think that Maiden has higher lowpoints then Metallica has.
However, I do think that Metallica's best albums, Master of Puppets, Ride the Lightning and And Justice For All (for me) are better then Iron Maiden's best albums, Powerslave, A Matter of Life and Death and Seventh Son of a Seventh Son (for me).
So yeah, Metallica has higher points, but Maiden has a much more solid/better discography overall.
Sums it up pretty nicely for me I think :D
-
I love Iron Maiden, they [we're blood brothers] are in my top [we're blood brothers] 3 favorite bands, but [we're blood brothers] everyone knows [we're blood brothers] they can tend to be [we're blood brothers] a bit formulaic and [we're blood brothers] repetitive. They suffer from [we're blood brothers] something I call "That Iron Maiden Thing" that [we're blood brothers] you start to understand [we're blood brothers] when [we're blood brothers] you become a fan [we're blood brothers] of the band. It's not necessarily [we're blood brothers] something that will [we're blood brothers] make you hate [we're blood brothers] them, but it's definitely [we're blood brothers] been a bit of an issue [we're blood brothers] with them, especially on [we're blood brothers] their "reunion" [we're blood brothers] albums.
-
This isn't even a fair poll.
Iron Maiden.
-
I have been listening to them since Kill Em All, but just never seem to get taken with them.
been listening to IM since Dianno days, and they are a staple of my playlist
-
I love Iron Maiden, they [we're blood brothers] are in my top [we're blood brothers] 3 favorite bands, but [we're blood brothers] everyone knows [we're blood brothers] they can tend to be [we're blood brothers] a bit formulaic and [we're blood brothers] repetitive. They suffer from [we're blood brothers] something I call "That Iron Maiden Thing" that [we're blood brothers] you start to understand [we're blood brothers] when [we're blood brothers] you become a fan [we're blood brothers] of the band. It's not necessarily [we're blood brothers] something that will [we're blood brothers] make you hate [we're blood brothers] them, but it's definitely [we're blood brothers] been a bit of an issue [we're blood brothers] with them, especially on [we're blood brothers] their "reunion" [we're blood brothers] albums.
:rollin
-
I love Iron Maiden, they [we're blood brothers] are in my top [we're blood brothers] 3 favorite bands, but [we're blood brothers] everyone knows [we're blood brothers] they can tend to be [we're blood brothers] a bit formulaic and [we're blood brothers] repetitive. They suffer from [we're blood brothers] something I call "That Iron Maiden Thing" that [we're blood brothers] you start to understand [we're blood brothers] when [we're blood brothers] you become a fan [we're blood brothers] of the band. It's not necessarily [we're blood brothers] something that will [we're blood brothers] make you hate [we're blood brothers] them, but it's definitely [we're blood brothers] been a bit of an issue [we're blood brothers] with them, especially on [we're blood brothers] their "reunion" [we're blood brothers] albums.
OMG...QFT!!!
You look at the first 7 IM albums, and it was rare (not non-existent, but rare). And then it's like suddenly, Steve Harris forgot how to write an interesting chorus, and just went the easy route of repeating the name of the song ad nauseum!!!
Virtual XI is the worst offender, but it didn't get terribly better after Bruce's return.
-
You honestly think that can compete with ''I'm madly in anger with you'' times a dozen? Blood brothers is such a beautiful song...
-
I don't know, Metallica being repetitive has only been the problem for me on St.Anger pretty much, that album is like the same thing repeated over and over.
With Maiden, I think that it happens a lot more often, in some cases it's good, and in some cases it's not.
-
I don't know, Metallica being repetitive has only been the problem for me on St.Anger pretty much, that album is like the same thing repeated over and over.
With Maiden, I think that it happens a lot more often, in some cases it's good, and in some cases it's not.
Metallica's golden 4 all have their own distinct style, The Black Album was very good, Load and Reload had high moments, I liked St. Anger some, and Death Magnetic kicked ass, where as IronMaiden's career is filled with lots of filler.
-
Metallica by a billion light years. But you all knew I'd choose that.
-
Iron Maiden 1980-1988
Fixed.
And you can add 2000-present if you wanna. :biggrin:
As much as many people here consider Maidens albums during that period as their Golden..I for one was growing tired of sameness of the songs ( I prefer the D'ianno albums well beyond anything they did with Dickinson, not so much for the vocals but more so for the attitude of the earlier albums ) Once Dickinson came aboard they became a bit too polished for my tastes.
Whereas with Kill'em all/Ride the Lightning/Master and Justice it was in your face metal which I much more prefer
-
I bust their balls for writing choruses like that, but I still think they are vastly superior to Metallica.
Yeah, sure, they've dropped a few turds, but I don't think they've done anything as terrible as St. Anger.
Or the new thing with Lou Reed. Really that thing is just basically pure vomit
-
I used to get on Maiden for their repetitive choruses...then I saw them last year, and it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE not to sing along with a song like Blood Brothers. It can't be done. :lol I suppose you could be critical of a band for writing songs that designed for crowd response, but when that's the worst thing you've done lately, you're doing something right.
Maiden over Metallica, btw. Metallica's highs are arguably higher than Maiden's, but their lows are far worse than Maiden at their worst.
-
I love Iron Maiden, they [we're blood brothers] are in my top [we're blood brothers] 3 favorite bands, but [we're blood brothers] everyone knows [we're blood brothers] they can tend to be [we're blood brothers] a bit formulaic and [we're blood brothers] repetitive. They suffer from [we're blood brothers] something I call "That Iron Maiden Thing" that [we're blood brothers] you start to understand [we're blood brothers] when [we're blood brothers] you become a fan [we're blood brothers] of the band. It's not necessarily [we're blood brothers] something that will [we're blood brothers] make you hate [we're blood brothers] them, but it's definitely [we're blood brothers] been a bit of an issue [we're blood brothers] with them, especially on [we're blood brothers] their "reunion" [we're blood brothers] albums.
:lol :lol
And you could replace that with
NO MORE LIES!
NO MORE LIES!
NO MORE LIES!
NO MORE LIES!
NO MORE LIES!
NO MORE LIES!
NO MORE LIES!
NO MORE LIES!
NO MORE LIES!
NO MORE LIES!
NO MORE LIES!
NO MORE LIES!
NO MORE LIES!
NO MORE LIES!
NO MORE LIES!
NO MORE LIES!
NO MORE LIES!
NO MORE LIES!
NO MORE LIES!
NO MORE LIES!
NO MORE LIES!
NO MORE LIES!
-
Maiden by light years.
-
I do agree that reunion Maiden does repeat choruses a few too many times, but they often work out amazing live, and when the choruses are really good I don't mind. Also their latest album, The Final Frontier, doesn't have excessive repetition.
-
I say No Prayer and Fear are my favorite Maiden albums of the post 88 stuff.
Though, BNW and TXF, as well as much of AMOLAD and DOD are plenty great.
I can't say much positive about VXI, though. Much of it does nothing for me, though there are a couple songs I do enjoy. I wouldn't say the good songs on that album are that great by Maiden standards, though.
However, I'd take VXI over Lolwat anyday.
I could go on all day about Blaze's not being Bruce, but he actually did an alright job singing within the context of the music.
-
Iron Fucking Maiden.
1. Because they are not douches
2. Steve Fucking Harris
3. Because they never wrote a song called Unforgiven XII
4. Powerslave
5. Steve Fucking Harris
6. Steve Fucking Harris
7. Didn't bullshit everyone about not making videos then made videos
8. Steve Fucking Harris
-
A sped-up AC/DC with power metal lyrics and vocals that, more often than not, sounds more like parody than music I should even try caring about, or a halfway mature, interesting, explorative, regularly excellent and occasionally emotionally stirring metal band who decided not to write the same album over and over after three albums instead of, what, never?
Hard decision.
-
A sped-up AC/DC with power metal lyrics and vocals that, more often than not, sounds more like parody than music I should even try caring about, or a halfway mature, interesting, explorative, regularly excellent and occasionally emotionally stirring metal band who decided not to write the same album over and over after three albums instead of, what, never?
Hard decision.
who is who
-
Maiden. No contest. Maiden has had a more consistent career, and their songs are just better, IMO. Plus they never made an album with Lou Reed.
. . . Yet
:neverusethis:
-
How is this even a question?
well they are 2 of the most famous metal bands of all time.
-
A sped-up AC/DC with power metal lyrics and vocals that, more often than not, sounds more like parody than music I should even try caring about, or a halfway mature, interesting, explorative, regularly excellent and occasionally emotionally stirring metal band who decided not to write the same album over and over after three albums instead of, what, never?
Hard decision.
No offence, but saying any of these two bands "wrote the same album over and over again" is a sign of absolute ignorance.
-
Not really. An overstatement, perhaps, but (this point has already been made) Iron Maiden has never made any change to their formula over the years. I'm not saying Metallica is better (I don't care for either enough to decide) but Maiden is definitely a band with over a dozen extremely similar albums.
-
I'm a fan of Maiden, but it's impossible to disagree about the fact that they have pretty much released the same album over and over since 1980.
Nothing wrong with it really, they do come up with good songs etc, but they haven't really cared too much about trying new things.
Sure, the newer albums might have a small Prog-influence, but it's still Maiden, nothing drastically different.
-
Most Maiden sounds pretty similar to me, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just look at Metallica. Some of their classic albums follow a similar formula, and it worked. Once they started to stray from that further, it became very hit and miss, emphasis heavily on miss.
I voted Metallica, but that was on the strength of their early amazing albums (I'm including TBA in that), and not on their consistency, which Maiden clearly has done better.
-
A sped-up AC/DC with power metal lyrics and vocals that, more often than not, sounds more like parody than music I should even try caring about, or a halfway mature, interesting, explorative, regularly excellent and occasionally emotionally stirring metal band who decided not to write the same album over and over after three albums instead of, what, never?
Hard decision.
Metallica = halfway mature?
Guess you've never seen Some Kind of Monster.
-
A sped-up AC/DC with power metal lyrics and vocals that, more often than not, sounds more like parody than music I should even try caring about, or a halfway mature, interesting, explorative, regularly excellent and occasionally emotionally stirring metal band who decided not to write the same album over and over after three albums instead of, what, never?
Hard decision.
Metallica = halfway mature?
Guess you've never seen Some Kind of Monster.
Maybe that's the other half. :p
-
By the way, I really like both bands, and at one point in my "music career" :\ I played bass guitar in a Metallica tribute band called "Phantom Lord" and that was a lot of fun. Those early albums have some really difficult stuff to play on them.
-
I don't see how you could say Maiden's released the same album since 1980 with a straight face.
Especially in light of the fact that Ride the Lightning, Master of Puppets, And Justice For All, and Death Magnetic were all built around the same essential structure (opener with quieter intro, second song mid-tempo and until Death Magnetic the title track, fourth song the ballad with the uptempo coda, extended instrumental in the second half of the album, fastest song on the album as the closer except for RTL, I could go on but I still am working on waking up, lol.) The level of contrivance in Death Magnetic, where you could practically hear the band calling out which album they were referencing, is sometimes hilarious.
Maiden on the other hand? The Di'Anno albums, especially the first, have their own sound. Beast is a halfway point between the Di'Anno era and where the band wound up later in the 80s. The Maiden sound of 1983 onward peaked with Seventh Son, and then began to evolve again towards the more progressive sound the band has today with Fear of the Dark. Since the reunion, the band's songs have evolved towards greater length and complexity. There is a certain through-line of the band's sound, yes, but the notion that they've sounded the same since 1980 is ridiculous.
-
I thought it was common knowledge that Maiden has sounded the same for about 30 years.
It's not AS extreme as it is with AC/DC, but not even true Maiden-fans can argue about "omg they change a lot in sound between albums", I just don't buy that personally.
-
Metallica. I've been listening to them far longer than I've been listening to Maiden. I like Maiden but Metallica is still far and away my favorite of the two bands.
-
I thought it was common knowledge that Maiden has sounded the same for about 30 years.
It's not AS extreme as it is with AC/DC, but not even true Maiden-fans can argue about "omg they change a lot in sound between albums", I just don't buy that personally.
Yeah, I'd agree that they've sounded the same for the whole career. They certainly have kept that essential Maiden-ness within their sound and they haven't released anything that hasn't sounded like Maiden. But saying they've made the same album over and over for 30 years is just silly. Just because they aren't pulling a Porcupine Tree and completely reinventing their sound every three albums doesn't mean they're releasing the same album over and over.
The Dianno albums sound nothing like Somewhere in Time and Seventh Son and Fear of the Dark and No Prayer were a return to their earlier sound which was then followed by another foray into more progressive songwriting (without synths though).
-
Maiden has only really started sounding the same post reunion. The majority of the songs have a mellow intro, heavy mid section with same line choruses repeated out the wahzoo, solo section, more choruses, slow outro. Surely they're aware, but lazy and just don't care. I'm a poet and I didn't know it. Metallica released 5 great albums and then went back to their home planet. They sold the rights to the name to 4 shmucks before leaving.
-
I don't really care if they have a formula. That's how they like their music and that's how I like their music. Both parties are happy. :tup
-
I thought it was common knowledge that Maiden has sounded the same for about 30 years.
It's not AS extreme as it is with AC/DC, but not even true Maiden-fans can argue about "omg they change a lot in sound between albums", I just don't buy that personally.
I agree, but really I don't think that every good band has to change their sound every album. Iron Maiden have an extremely unique sound and it works for them, so I tbh I would rather them continue this style than change styles. They just do it so well. I mean, I like bands that changes styles but I don't think it essential for them to be "good" at all.
-
Why is it so necessary for bands to change their style? Using when they do, they go into suck mode.
-
Why is it so necessary for bands to change their style? Using when they do, they go into suck mode.
In most cases, it's not the band sucking. It's most people's resistance to change. Sad really...
-
Ok, you got Maiden doing their thing for 10 years, then all of a sudden, "LET'S SOUND LIKE AC/DC NOW!!!" Do you really expect fans to go for that?
Metallica were kicking ass for about 10 years and in that time period made their most technical album yet, and then they're like "this shit's too long, let's write shorter songs" and Bob Rock is like "Did somebody say sell out?" Granted, The Black album isn't bad, but after that they were so watered down it was dreadful. Obviously millions of people still loved them, but for others it spelled the end. Change is fine, but Metallica was a thrash metal band who changed into a uninteresting rock band.
It's like if Kamelot were to make a bunch of kick ass power metal albums, release their magnum opus, and then follow it up with a boring Gothic sounding mess.
Oh wait...
-
It all comes down to what people enjoy.
Some fans are very narrowminded, they want their bands to sound a certain way, to have a certain 'core' in their sound, with Maiden it's that classic heavy metal, with a band like Opeth it might be the heavy/soft ratio intact, and with other bands it might be something completely else.
I'm not suggesting that these fans are wrong, it all comes down to opinions and what someone might like.
My take on these fans is that they can be very afraid of change, and in many cases (sadly) there are fans determined that a new album by a band will "suck", because it is announced before that it will be different, in whatever way that can be.
Then there are fans who are very open to new ideas, people who not only likes change, but wants change.
In many cases, I think it can be a band releasing an album considered "flawless", an album that many people say, "they will never top this.", and in those cases, why should they try to copy it?
I think a good example of this would be what Between the Buried and Me did from Colors to The Great Misdirect, they made an album (Colors) considered to be untoppable (pretty much), but they were determined to try, and they made The Great Misdirect, trying to follow up the style, idea or whatever of Colors.
Some fans might say that they made a better album, some might disagree, while it all comes down to opinions, I think the majority were sadly a bit disappointed. (even though I love the album myself!)
Anyhow, as I see it personally, I'd much rather see artists try new things, then following their own footsteps.
As I see it, bands that sound the same, or at least don't change very much, they are sorta going around in a big circle, wandering the same path they've always wandered, except maybe a footsteps here and there changing, but it's not much of a change at all.
I'd much rather see artists try something new, because at the end of the day, if a band or an artist tries to follow up a successful album with a similar-sounding one, and fail... people will always say: "I can still listen to the classic"
And I think that's a normal scenario, if a band sounds the same on 4 albums, people will always listen to the one(s) they consider the best, because they have something that the other(s) lack, but if there are 4 completely different albums, there's no way that one album is enough to cover all the ground.
Obviously chances are that taking a leap of faith is a huge risk, for some bands it is highly praised (Ulver), for some it's mostly looked down on (Metallica), it all comes down to how they do it.
Just my 5 cents really.
-
I'm not saying Iron Maiden pulled off some kind of revolution. But honestly, how can you say their albums sound the same?
They do have a core sound which is hard to confuse, ok. I don't see anything wrong with that personally. Also, none of the albums except maybe the change on X Factor after Blaze joined were a very serious change. But not changing and not evolving? Sounding the same for 30 YEARS? Sorry, but for me this is an absolute WTF statement.
Even Brave New World vs. A Matter of Life and Death (I admit I still haven't got around to listening to The Final Frontier... I don't know why, but it's a mistake to fix) is a big difference. Try to explain how they're supposedly similar, because I can't see it. Some key elements are there of course, and it's not a revolution but that's it. Plus songs like The Legacy or Journeyman which are completely different from anything they had ever done before.
Seriously, not every fucking band is Pain of Salvation and saying Iron Maiden has been sounding the same for 30 years imo means either ridiculous expectations in terms of a band's evolution, or just a complete lack of knowledge of their discography. There are bands you could maybe say this about, but Maiden are DEFINITELY not one of them.
-
Metallica. Couldn't ever get into Maiden beyond a few songs here and there.
This. And Metallica's early work is gold.
-
Thank you, Liberation.
The magnitude of a band's change between albums and such can vary.
On one hand, you have, say, AC/DC, who would probably have a magnitude of 1 or so, while on the other hand, someone like Zappa, who often changed core sounds within an album, would have a 10.
Iron Maiden, though a lot less varied in their outputs over the years than Zappa (or even Rush, or Metallica for that matter), would still have about a 2-3, but not a 1.
And of course, this scale doesn't necessarily have to do with the goodness of the music. Metallica's magnitude of change in style is definitely higher than Maiden's, though many would debate the quality of some of their works that are departures from their original sound.
-
Well, for starters I've listened to Maiden for about 8 years, not so much anymore, but still shitloads up until a few years ago.
Despite the change in singers, it wouldn't be impossible to pick maybe one song from each album, make a collection out of it, and convince a Maiden-newbie that they're from the same album.
Some hardcore Maiden-fans can argue that Somewhere in Time has synths, SSOASS is more "majestic", X-Factor being darker, obviously the change in singers, and that they have 3 guitarists now, but lets face it, these are all fairly small traits that only people who listen to Maiden a lot actually thinks about.
They can play The Trooper, Fear of the Dark, Run to the Hills or any other fairly "known" Maiden-song on the radio, and people will say "this is Iron Maiden, sounding Iron Maiden"
Hell, even take any of the re-union songs, The Wicker Man or Rainmaker, it's Maiden sounding Maiden.
Yeah, they've tried changing things, but the small changes they did hasn't left much of an imprint on the world.
Let's face it, despite many hardcore Maiden-fans liking The X-Factor, I'd still say the majority of radio-listeners would bash that album over and over, not only cause the lack of Bruce, but because it was a bit different after all.
Since the re-union, they have become slightly proggier with more longer songs, but the guitar-playing is still classic Maiden, it might have improved during the years, but it's so familiar that you hear right away who's playing the lead solo, or whatever.
Bruce, still sounds very much like Bruce, and despite having 3 guitarists now, it's not much of a change, because to actually hear a very noticeable difference, you need to have a killer soundsystem, or just a very good ear, and that doesn't apply to very many of Maiden's fans.
Maiden have changed, but it's so tiny in comparison to everything else, that nobody really thinks about it.
In a poll like this, they have nothing on Metallica in terms of changing their sound, Metallica has quite a few songs on Load and Reload, where I think many people would go "THIS is Metallica? doesn't sound like them at all", but that isn't the case with Maiden.
Even if Bruce is not singing on a certain album, instrumentally it's still very easy to recognize, through distinctive guitar solo's and such.
-
Maiden have changed, but it's so tiny in comparison to everything else, that nobody really thinks about it.
So... You take for granted what others think about Iron Maiden..your opinion is made by others.
Interesting....
Well ...for me Maiden has always been Steve Harris heart, soul and writing abilities but the fountain has run dry ever since Adrian left the band in the first place. They never sold out and that sound will be always unique and original.
Metallica were that terrifying unit in the 80's that reached to millions while being headbanging punks with a simple yet original formula.
They sold their souls to the Bon Jovi camp, exploded to the mainstream and gone artsy with Load and Reload, gone to rehab with St. Anger and finally accepted their roots on Death Magnetic.
I could rant about how Iron Maiden changed from perfect small fast paced songs to ever boring slow repetitive stuff but what makes me go to Metallica is that they know what their fans like. I don't care anymore if they make a great album these days because I know they will never make a Master of Puppets part 2 or a The Number of the Beast part 2.
What I do care about is how Iron Maiden doesn't know that the world has changed, they don't play different songs every night. They don't care about picking out of the box old songs to play on tour and they don't connect with the fans. They think if Hallowed be thy Name isn't played on one night it's the end of the world. Aces High, Caught Somewhere in Time and lots of others aren't played because it is necessary to play Fear of the Dark on a 80's themed World Tour. It's really mind bogging.
Metallica on the other hand have been the best touring band of all the time I guess. The changed setlists and the overall connection with their hardcore fans have been since St. Anger perfect.
-
Maiden have changed, but it's so tiny in comparison to everything else, that nobody really thinks about it.
So... You take for granted what others think about Iron Maiden..your opinion is made by others.
Interesting....
Not at all, but for every million fans that would say that Maiden has sounded fairly the same over the years, you might find one person who says "no, every album is miles different from the previous".
So no, I'm not basing my own opinions on what other people think, I'm basing it on how Maiden's albums actually sound, and let's face it, Maiden has always been sorta proud of being what they are, they haven't felt a need to leave their "comfort"-zone.
-
Maiden have changed, but it's so tiny in comparison to everything else, that nobody really thinks about it.
So... You take for granted what others think about Iron Maiden..your opinion is made by others.
Interesting....
Not at all, but for every million fans that would say that Maiden has sounded fairly the same over the years, you might find one person who says "no, every album is miles different from the previous".
So no, I'm not basing my own opinions on what other people think, I'm basing it on how Maiden's albums actually sound, and let's face it, Maiden has always been sorta proud of being what they are, they haven't felt a need to leave their "comfort"-zone.
I think you mistake having a staple sound and having songs that sound alike. The former is true just like Manowar, Slayer, Coldplay, the Stones, Muse or ACDC have for example. It's not a bad thing, each member know what they do best and they do it perfectly. I think it's a fucking risk how they have released BNW over and over on the last 10 years when their best stuff was simpler and straightforward.
The latter isn't true, I can't compare Run to the Hills to The Final Frontier, it's not the same song or album.
-
Obviously they aren't, but as I mentioned, I think Maiden is more of a "has changed, but not much" rather then "have not changed at all", but going into nitpicking isn't really gonna change much.
Comparing Run to the Hills with anything from The Final Frontier is a bit of a stretch, El Dorado is probably the closest, but I think Run to the Hills has more in common with songs like The Trooper, Wasted Years, The Evil That Men Do, Fear of the Dark, Bring Your Daughter to the Slaughter, Rainmaker and The Wicker Man, those are more the "comparable".
-
Metallica has the intro to Battery and Enter Sandman.
Iron Maiden has nothing.
Giving this one to Metallica.
-
Metallica has the intro to Battery and Enter Sandman.
Iron Maiden has nothing.
Giving this one to Metallica.
:corn
-
Sorry but I genuinely do not see much of anything in either band.
-
Where's Sigz to say that Maiden is bland and boring? I'm having controversial opinions withdrawals.
-
Metallica any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
-
Metallica any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
You're lactose intolerant aren't you?
-
Metallica any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
-
There was a time when Metallica was my absolute favorite. I bought RtL when it was a new release on the record store shelf.
I even love both St. Anger AND Lulu.
In spite of that...I have to say that Maiden has a more dense supply of listenable material. Even though Virtual XI is an absolute abomination, and could very well be the worst metal album in history...(yes, I think it makes St. Anger look like SFAM by comparison)...the rest of IM's catalog has just been a bit more consistent.
I just don't think anything IM has done can make up for the betrayal I felt when I first heard The Black Album. I've grown tolerant of it over time...but it just hurt the first time I heard it. It felt like absolute betrayal. Iron Maiden never made me feel that way.
No Prayer for the Dying made me balk and VXI made me puke...but only Metallica has made me feel stabbed in the back.
I pick Iron Maiden.
-
I don't get the hate for VXI. Just try and listen to it with an open mind, without expecting it to suck. I love it, its really quite similar to BNW just without Bruce.
-
No offence, but saying any of these two bands "wrote the same album over and over again" is a sign of absolute ignorance.
Exaggeration for effect. Metallica wrote four thrash albums, three of which sound very similar, and then went wandering. I've heard Number of the Beast, Powerslave, Brave New World, Dance of Death, the one after that, and two best of collections by Maiden, and you'd have a very hard time convincing me you couldn't put any song from any album onto any other album and it wouldn't sound out of place given a bit of production tweaking (with the exception of the eras with different singers, of course).
Most Maiden sounds pretty similar to me, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Just look at Metallica. Some of their classic albums follow a similar formula, and it worked. Once they started to stray from that further, it became very hit and miss, emphasis heavily on miss.
I voted Metallica, but that was on the strength of their early amazing albums (I'm including TBA in that), and not on their consistency, which Maiden clearly has done better.
See, this is the difference with me. With few exceptions, I would rather see a band eventually start writing drastically different music, even stuff that I don't care for much at all, than writing the same or very similar stuff forever. When a band does that, it gives me the impression they're far more mature musicians (and, to an extent, mature, interesting and intelligent people in general). Their musical aspirations are wide-ranging, they're interested in experimenting and playing in a lot of different styles, and/or their tastes/writing interests are in a state of evolution. They show they're not just a one-trick niche artist, or even worse, a gimmick act. I find it far easier to feel respect for musicians, as musicans and as people, if they go exploring.
Metallica is a win-win for me here. Not only have they displayed alarmingly mature careers by that definition, but unlike most people, I like more or less as much of their latter career material as I do their earlier career stuff, if not more. Iron Maiden are a bunch of brightly coloured clowns who, despite dressing it up a little differently, are still performing the same trick some thirty years into their "careers", a trick which I rarely found anything other than crappy and dull in the first place.
-
I really like Virtual XI. I don't get how can the worst metal album ever have songs like The Clansman, Futureal, The Educated fool and Como estais amigos. These are golden. :metal
-
I really like Virtual XI. I don't get how can the worst metal album ever have songs like The Clansman, Futureal, The Educated fool and Como estais amigos. These are golden. :metal
Well said!
-
Sorry...but TAatG, DLTTEOAS, LST and WTWC are just absolute CRAP IMO. And it wasn't Blaze...I actually *LOVE* The X Factor. I think it's one of the most underrated albums in IM's catalog. I even think Blaze did a really fantastic job with some of Bruce's material. His version of ATSS from BotB is fantastic! No, it wasn't Blaze. I honestly listen to that album, and I hear some great ideas...but it's hard for me to take that a bunch of men were sitting in a room hearing TAatG, and not one person had the balls to say, "Ya know Steve...don't you think that chorus is overdoing it a bit?" Part of me almost wants to believe that it was done on purpose with the intent of blaming the failure on Blaze so they could try and romance Bruce back into the band. (but that's just silliness)
NOTHING....not even Blood Brothers...can touch TAatG for repetition. I've been listening to metal for 30 years, and I've heard alot of repetitive songs from alot of different genres. I don't even think "I Wanna Rock" repeats itself as much as TAatG. Sometimes it's hard to believe they didn't do it on purpose.
Sorry...I'm actually a pretty mellow guy, but this album pisses me off for some reason. :blush
-
No offence, but saying any of these two bands "wrote the same album over and over again" is a sign of absolute ignorance.
Exaggeration for effect. Metallica wrote four thrash albums, three of which sound very similar, and then went wandering. I've heard Number of the Beast, Powerslave, Brave New World, Dance of Death, the one after that, and two best of collections by Maiden, and you'd have a very hard time convincing me you couldn't put any song from any album onto any other album and it wouldn't sound out of place given a bit of production tweaking (with the exception of the eras with different singers, of course).
I could be evil and give something like Journeyman, but just try Brave New World and Paschendale. I do not see how exactly you could swap these two and tell me they sound similar, even though they're both medium-length songs with big and powerful moments.
-
Yeah I agree about the chorus of AATG obviously is way too repetitive. But thats my least favourite on the album by a long shot. It would be a good song IMO if they shortened it down to 5 minutes or so.
-
Iron Maiden is much better.
They have made 15 studio albums. Fear of the Dark is only good, the other 14 are at least great (4/5). My favourites are the five first.
Metallica has used their potential fully, technically they are alright (except the bass, Orion!). But they have made Master of Puppets, which is the greatest album ever. ...AJFA, Kill, Black, Load and Magnetic are also albums I like, but those aren't enough.
But the biggest reason: DOUBLE GUITAR MELODIES!
E: Actually I haven't heard Kill 'Em All and St.Anger entirely. But the first has many great songs.
-
I think it's unfair to make this poll so close to the release of Lulu.
-
I think it's unfair to make this poll so close to the release of Lulu.
Technically Lulu isn't a Metallica album. :P
-
and they have never made me go "WTF IS THIS".
I don't mean to argue against the band I chose (and one of my all time favourite bands) but I just have to say it...
MAYBE LIGHTNING STRIKES TWIIICE
Nah.
DON'TLOOKTOTHEEYESOFASTRANGER!
-
I think it's unfair to make this poll so close to the release of Lulu.
Technically Lulu isn't a Metallica album. :P
NO EXCUSE! :police:
-
I think it's unfair to make this poll so close to the release of Lulu.
Technically Lulu isn't a Metallica album. :P
I actively despise you.
-
I'm not defending it or anything, but it's a collaboration.
Still, Metallica hasn't made anything good since And Justice (though Load is decent enough), so Lulu shouldn't really need to be included when talking about Metallica's downfall.
-
Interesting that this thread popped up again. On a whim I decided to take Death Magnetic for a spin at the gym this morning.
Made it about half way through it and moved on to.....Seventh Son of a Seventh Son (https://www.kirksnosehair.com/pics/edhorns.gif)
-
Some of Metallica's albums are better than some of Maiden's albums, and vice versa, but as a whole I'd pick Iron Maiden. Bruce Dickinson. That is all. :metal
-
I think it's unfair to make this poll so close to the release of Lulu.
Technically Lulu isn't a Metallica album. :P
I actively despise you.
Personal...attack?
-
World Slavery Tour--03/04//85--Dallas--WASP (backstage pass)
Somewhere on Tour--01/24/87--Dallas--Vinnie Vincent??
Fear of the Dark Tour--08/07/92--Dallas--???
The X Factour--03/15/96--Dallas--???
Virtual XI World Tour--7/12/98--Dallas--Dio (113°-front row with a flask of JD)
The Ed Hunter Tour--8/8/99--Dallas--Monster Magnet
Brave New World Tour--9/1/2000--Dallas--Queensryche--Rob Halford
Give me Ed 'til I'm Dead tour--8/13/03--Dallas--Dio, Motörhead
Eddy Rips of the World (Early Days)--08/09/05--Denver, Co--Slipknot
Eddy Rips of the World (Early Days)--08/20/05--San Bernadion, Ca--Ozzfest (eggs be a flyin)
Somewhere back in Time--02/09/08--Los Angeles, Ca--Lauren Harris
Somewhere back in Time--05/21/08--Houston, Tx--Lauren Harris
Final Frontier World Tour--06/09/10--Dallas, Tx--Dream Theater
Final Frontier World Tour--06/11/10--Houston Tx--Dream Theater
1986-Damage, Inc. third row, opening for Ozzy.
1988-Texxxas Jam-premier of Harvester of Sorrow, John Marshall on rhythm guitar
1989-Damaged Justice-at baricade for entire show. Newsted gave me a beer. During second beer break, I reached for another and he kicked my hand out of the way and said "you already got one!" Got a drum stick and a pick. Coincidentally, met Kenny Rogers after the show.
1991-Wherever we may Rome-Front row, right
1992-Metallica/G&R-John Marshall on rhythm guitar-Sweltering, drunk off my ass on vodka
2000-Summer Sanitarium- No Hetfield, lots of guests-Kid Rock's midget ran around the whole show yelling "yeah, mother fucker!" in that little midget voice. :lol
2000-Makeup date for previous gig-4½ times louder than anything I've ever heard in my life.
2003-Summer Sanitarium-watched from VIP on stage right-knelt down behind Ulrich's riser during Fuel-scary fire everywhere
2009-World Magnetic tour-Hamburg Germany-Drunk off my ass on Holsten beer with friendly krauts
2009-World Magnetic Tour-Dallas
Just establishing some street-cred.
I'm going with Maiden pretty easily. They produced three albums I don't like, but 10 that I adore. I liked Load and Re-Load more than most people, but can't stand TBA, and feel about SA the same way everybody else does. Honestly, the best thing Metallica's done in ages was written by Mercyful Fate.
Something I've been pondering is what it'd be like to sit through a concert made up of all of their worst songs. I wouldn't mind that with Maiden. None of their songs make me wretch, and it'd be interesting to hear some of them live. The Metallica equivalent would be excruciating.
Consistency through the years is an interesting consideration. Metallica has tried to make a different album every time, and more often than not, they've sucked trying. I don't think Maiden makes the same album at all. As others have pointed out, there's a constant Maiden sound that runs through them, but I can't think of more than two albums in a row that are similar.
It's also worth noting that Bruce was a completely different singer during NPftD and FotD than he was for any of the preceding or following albums. I'd almost consider them to have had 4, if not 5 different singers. Hard to make the same album over and over with that much change in the vocals.
Trying to figure out which is the better live band is damned tough. Both of them are able to get crowds whipped up like crazy. There's a reason I've seen them both so many times. Always a great show.
-
Great post, Bart.
You're spot on about Bruce on NPFTD and FOTD. He was completely robbed of his power those years.
Strangely, the No Prayer tour was one of my favorite concerts of all time.
But RL over TBA? Wut?
-
I have to go with Metallica. I like Maiden too. But, I mean Metallica writes songs that actually sound really different from each other. Maiden's songs are all extremely similar to each other. I mean, they have been just ripping up the Minor scale their entire careers with galloping triplets. They never really broke new ground for themselves. Don't get me wrong, I like Maiden. I just think Metallica is the better band.
-
Maiden, no contest.
I love Ride the Lightning more than a good chunk of Maiden's albums, and of course their other three albums from their "golden era" are great.
But frankly, even Maiden's allegedly worst albums contain some great songs, and their allegedly worst moments--"The Angel and the Gambler" among them--have a certain draw to them. I can't quite put it into words, but there is something damn special about their music, something that strikes me as meaningful and personal. No, that's not objective, but if they're getting an emotional response from me, they must be doing something right.
Also, I know this is controversial, but Number of the Beast and A Matter of Life and Death are actually among of my LEAST favorite Maiden albums, and The Final Frontier, in addition to being my favorite reunion albums, is easily in my top five Maiden albums overall. I love The X Factor too, though my favorites are easily Seventh Son of a Seventh Son and Somewhere in Time.
The Number of the Beast was a good introduction for Bruce, but Run to the Hills, for example, has never been all that interesting to me. While there aren't many bad songs on the album, the only two phenomenal ones are TNotB and Hallowed Be Thy Name. Mind you, the latter is amazing, but that doesn't mean the whole album is.
Whatever. It's still a great album, and even my two least favorites (NPftD and FotD) have their moments.
-
Never got the love for SiT. I mean, it really has some brilliant moments to be sure. But following up the previous 5 albums was just damn near impossible. They had just got better and better with every release.
In retrospect, I like it alot more than when it came out. The title track, SiaSL, SoM, were always standouts to me. Wasted Years is pretty good. Didn't like HCW or LotLDR when I first heard them, but they've grown on me and I like them alot better now. Deja Vu is really cool, but just kinda there...kindof like QFF from PoM. And Alexander the Great is just a really boring and anti-climactic end to an album. Probably one of my least favorite album closers in the IM catalog.
I'm glad people like it, but when you discovered them on NotB, and rode the wave straight through to Powerslave....SiT just seemed a bit of a letdown. I like SSoaSS quite a bit better.
-
The instrumental section in AtG is badass and the song isn't boring at all. No soup for you.
-
Hmmm..... Iron Maiden, Iron Maiden....
I like Number Of The Beast quite a bit, which has a lion's share of excellent and fun songs. I like specific songs on Powerslave and Somewhere In Time, and rank them as some of the most definitive metal songs I've ever heard. I generally never skip a song of theirs when it comes up on my playlist, and I really need to listen to them more.
That said, Metallica by a mile. I love the fact that they consistently try new things. Lulu and St. Anger really weren't successful, but I love both Loads, and they really haven't repeated themselves at all since the 80s (Death Magnetic sounds much more experimental to my ears than any of their first four albums).
I like Iron Maiden too, but I definitely agree with the opinion I've seen elsewhere that all their songs sound the same after awhile. Then again, I have that complaint about a lot of metal.
-
Iron Maiden by a long shot.
Album Powerslave easily beats anything Metallica have ever done.
-
Since someone resurrected this...
It's Maiden by a mile. For starters, it's been more than a quarter century since Metallica did anything that I thought was worth a damn. Even if you consider only the 1980s, Metallica had two great albums, only really good album and one album that's good but has a couple great songs. Kill 'Em All has never quite clicked for me. Four Horsemen and Seek and Destroy are great songs, but the rest of the album is a bit hit or miss. It's definitely a strong debut album. Ride the Lightning and Master of Puppets are great albums, but both have clear weak spots. Justice should be great, but the bass-free mix ruins it, and some of the songs are in desperate need of a stronger producer's influence.
Maiden, on the other hand, not only put out nearly twice as many albums (which isn't really a fair point since they had a three year head start), but the overall quality is higher by leaps and bounds. SSoaSS is probably the weakest of the bunch, but the title track is one of the best songs Maiden ever did. Somewhere in Time is good but not great. The first three Dickinson albums are probably all top 20 albums of the 80s, and probably two of them are top 10. The two Di'Anno albums are a bit hit or miss. I'm not as much into Killers as a lot of people are, but songs like Wratchild and Murders in the Rue Morgue are exceptional. The debut album also has a few great songs, including the all-time classic Phantom of the Opera. I didn't hear it until sometime after Piece of Mind was written, so I was already familiar with Steve Harris's playing, but I can only imagine how that song must have come across when it was brand new. Such mind blowing playing at the time.
Taking the black album and the Blayze Bailey albums (which I've never heard) out of the mix, I'd be heard pressed to think if anything that Metallica has done since the 80s that is better than anything Maiden has done.
-
I really like the song Blood Brothers. A song that suffers more from repetitiveness is "No More Lies", it could have been a pretty great song if it wasn't for that. So that being said, my vote still goes to Iron Maiden all the way!!! :metal
-
Iron Maiden have more great albums than Metallica, but Metallica have Master of Puppets, Ride The Lightning and And Justice For All, which are 3 of my favourite albums of all time. So I voted for Metallica. Both fantastic bands though.
-
I still really can't decide.
For Metallica, the only music I really care about from them is the run from Ride through the Black album. But, man, that 4 album run is almost untouchable.
Maiden wins in quantity in terms of albums I care about (Beast, Piece of Mind, Powerslave (barely qualifies, but the three songs worth listening to are great), Somewhere in Time, and all five reunion albums).
So it's 9 to 4 in terms of quantity of albums. And as of right now, I probably prefer to listen to a Maiden album than a Metallica album more often than not. But I dunno. There's just something about those Metallica albums that won't let me write them off for Maiden. I'm still in "can't decide" territory.
-
I can't tell if I replied to this before or not, but either way, the answer will be the same: MAIDEN by a long shot. I like Metallica - James Hetfield is right now the coolest guy in metal - but Maiden were my first, and that goes a long way.
-
Iron Maiden all day, every day, from here to eternity. To me they are far better in every single way. Maiden is love, Maiden is life.
-
Iron Maiden fairly easily, they are my favorite band so there really is no competition. However, the Metallica run is really tough to beat, but Metallica just doesn't have enough quality compared to IM. Metallica has 10 albums whereas IM have 16. Both have their dud albums, but there's still significantly more quality music that came out of IM. Metallica has made more of an impact to American metal music, but it's not enough for me to rate them higher either.
-
I can’t decide. Metallica holds a special place in my heart as they were the first metal band I got into, and man did I get into them. I started playing drums in high school and my friend (who played guitar) and I would play Metallica all the time. I don’t think there was a song from their first four albums that’s we didn’t play. With that said I think Maiden is better musically, and their lead guitars/solos are so much more enjoyable than Metallica’s. I find that I listen to Maiden more these days, but I think at least part of that is because I listened to Metallica so much when I was younger. Basically I love both bands and I just can’t pick between them and I absolutely love the latest releases by both bands.
-
While Maiden is far more consistent (And they don't have a St. Anger or a Lulu in their discography), I like my favorite works of Metallica a lot more than my favorite works of Maiden. So I guess 'Tallica gets the edge.
-
Metallica all day, every day, from here to eternity. To me they are far better in every single way. Metallica is love, Metallica is life.
Fixed.
-
Metallica by far.
I like Maiden's hits and I've tried to listen to their albums, but their stuff is just too samey and repetitive to listen to in the long run. Metallica have put out a few turds, but their best works surpass Maiden's easily, and I respect them for branching out, even if the results aren't always successful. Besides, as a guitar player myself, I'm more drawn to Metallica because they're more of a riff band than a lead band.
-
Iron Maiden in a blowout.
Better albums, better songs. For a longer period of time.
Time was always on their side.
-
Metallica
-
I love Iron Maiden, they [we're blood brothers] are in my top [we're blood brothers] 3 favorite bands, but [we're blood brothers] everyone knows [we're blood brothers] they can tend to be [we're blood brothers] a bit formulaic and [we're blood brothers] repetitive. They suffer from [we're blood brothers] something I call "That Iron Maiden Thing" that [we're blood brothers] you start to understand [we're blood brothers] when [we're blood brothers] you become a fan [we're blood brothers] of the band. It's not necessarily [we're blood brothers] something that will [we're blood brothers] make you hate [we're blood brothers] them, but it's definitely [we're blood brothers] been a bit of an issue [we're blood brothers] with them, especially on [we're blood brothers] their "reunion" [we're blood brothers] albums.
Blood Brothers is repeated 20 times (4 per chorus) in the span of 7 minutes. I think this a slight overreaction.
-
I love Iron Maiden, they [we're blood brothers] are in my top [we're blood brothers] 3 favorite bands, but [we're blood brothers] everyone knows [we're blood brothers] they can tend to be [we're blood brothers] a bit formulaic and [we're blood brothers] repetitive. They suffer from [we're blood brothers] something I call "That Iron Maiden Thing" that [we're blood brothers] you start to understand [we're blood brothers] when [we're blood brothers] you become a fan [we're blood brothers] of the band. It's not necessarily [we're blood brothers] something that will [we're blood brothers] make you hate [we're blood brothers] them, but it's definitely [we're blood brothers] been a bit of an issue [we're blood brothers] with them, especially on [we're blood brothers] their "reunion" [we're blood brothers] albums.
Blood Brothers is repeated 20 times (4 per chorus) in the span of 7 minutes. I think this a slight overreaction.
Well he only wrote it 18 times, so I'd say it's an underreaction.
I dunno the song.
-
I love Iron Maiden, they [we're blood brothers] are in my top [we're blood brothers] 3 favorite bands, but [we're blood brothers] everyone knows [we're blood brothers] they can tend to be [we're blood brothers] a bit formulaic and [we're blood brothers] repetitive. They suffer from [we're blood brothers] something I call "That Iron Maiden Thing" that [we're blood brothers] you start to understand [we're blood brothers] when [we're blood brothers] you become a fan [we're blood brothers] of the band. It's not necessarily [we're blood brothers] something that will [we're blood brothers] make you hate [we're blood brothers] them, but it's definitely [we're blood brothers] been a bit of an issue [we're blood brothers] with them, especially on [we're blood brothers] their "reunion" [we're blood brothers] albums.
Blood Brothers is repeated 20 times (4 per chorus) in the span of 7 minutes. I think this a slight overreaction.
Well he only wrote it 18 times, so I'd say it's an underreaction.
I dunno the song.
Yes, but that entire post only took me about 1 minute to read. So if we're going to be technical, the time:repetition ratio is 7x greater in his post than in the actual song.
:dangerwillrobinson:
-
Iron Maiden by far
-
I love Iron Maiden, they [we're blood brothers] are in my top [we're blood brothers] 3 favorite bands, but [we're blood brothers] everyone knows [we're blood brothers] they can tend to be [we're blood brothers] a bit formulaic and [we're blood brothers] repetitive. They suffer from [we're blood brothers] something I call "That Iron Maiden Thing" that [we're blood brothers] you start to understand [we're blood brothers] when [we're blood brothers] you become a fan [we're blood brothers] of the band. It's not necessarily [we're blood brothers] something that will [we're blood brothers] make you hate [we're blood brothers] them, but it's definitely [we're blood brothers] been a bit of an issue [we're blood brothers] with them, especially on [we're blood brothers] their "reunion" [we're blood brothers] albums.
Blood Brothers is repeated 20 times (4 per chorus) in the span of 7 minutes. I think this a slight overreaction.
Putting aside the "Blood Brothers" reference, the criticism was well taken. How many Maiden songs are based on a I-vi-vii or I-vii-vi chord progression with the main rhythm played in an eighth note and two sixteenth note rhythm (i.e., the horse galloping rhythm) or a basic 12/8 rhythm? If you answered "all of them" (or "all of them on which Steve Harris is the primary writer), you wouldn't be too far off. It's a formula that has served the band well, but it does get a bit tiresome.