I was pleasantly surprised by both the Di'Anno albums. Growing up in Australia, I was always a huge fan of
The Angels (
THIS one), and when I first heard
'Iron Maiden' (and
'Killers' shortly after), I was struck by just how similar Di'Anno's vocals were to Doc Neeson's of The Angels. So, for me personally, early Maiden was almost like listening to a heavier, more diverse incarnation of The Angels, and I gotta say that I quite liked it.
But, with that being said, I've never been a
huge fan of
'Iron Maiden' and
'Killers', as far as the material goes. When compared to the rest of the band's material, I just find it a little flat, and a little lacking in dynamics. The music entertains me, but doesn't excite me. I
respect the albums, though; I
do understand why they're so adored and highly regarded among fans. But I'm afraid that no amount of respect can make me enjoy these albums in the same way I enjoy Iron Maiden's later material.
When I think of
'Iron Maiden' and
'Killers', I think of two albums that display the modest beginnings of one of my favourite bands, and depict the first stage of the band's own 'evolutionary process'. I more own these albums for collection's sake, rather than listening pleasure. Because, aside from a few choice cuts -
"Remember Tomorrow",
"Running Free",
"Purgatory",
"Genghis Khan", the second half of
"Innocent Exile", and maybe,
maybe "Phantom of the Opera",
"Murders in the Rue Morgue" and
"Prowler" - there isn't much else of interest to me, and there are moments on the albums where I simply zone out, as a result of hearing consecutive songs that are bereft of any unique, distinguishing qualities.
Overall, I consider the Di'Anno albums to be the equivalent of
Motörhead's first handful of albums. They're good albums, yes, but they're still reflective of a band trying to find their feet. It was only
after this period that the band actually started becoming interesting. And I don't mean any of this as an insult; to me, this is just how it is:
'Iron Maiden' and
'Killers' were an
admirable beginning, but largely uninteresting. However, aside from all that, they are very
important albums, because they laid all of the groundwork for what would eventually grow into the Iron Maiden that the world knows today. All the qualities were there - the speed, the theatrics, the disguised complexity, the general subject matter/lyrical content, etc. All of these traits can be found on these early albums, in their infancy.
'Iron Maiden' and
'Killers' were the early works of a band that would later move onto bigger things, but their influence on the band would remain.
So, overall:
- The Di'Anno albums were an important part of the band's history.
- They were an admirable attempt for a band starting out.
- Are they all that great on their own merits, context aside? Not really; aside from a few highlights, the albums' content is largely just 'okay'.
- Would I / do I return to them for my own listening pleasure? No.
- Are they Iron Maiden's worst albums? No.
- Would I concede that the albums are probably better than I give them credit for? Yes, but I was merely stating my opinions and perspective.
Topic: The BRUCE DICKINSON Discography v. Goodbye, Bruce (Read 49216 times)
