I think the last two claims (chord progressions and tempos) have some legitimacy, but the first two are just matters of personal opinion dressed up in a really loaded language and presented as though they're objective observations about a songwriter's tendencies.
"Unnecessary length-padding" just translates as "he writes songs that are longer than I would like them to be." The "padding" part of the claim assumes a motivation that you cannot possibly have knowledge of, and it's also a motivation that doesn't make sense. Harris knows full well that a massive portion of the audience wishes he would write shorter songs. Do you really think that he's sitting around saying to himself, "Well, I only really have enough material for a six-minute song, but I feel the heavy weight of expectations demanding that it be nine minutes, so I guess I have to pad it out"? Or is it more likely that he just thinks that these songs have sufficient material to necessitate their length, and you disagree? I don't think it makes sense to say that this, as written, is a tendency, because "unnecessary" is an opinion, not a fact, and "padding" is speculation about a person's motivation. "He writes long songs" is definitely a tendency of Harris's, but I doubt you'll get as many people on the bandwagon of "I hope this album isn't ruined by the horrible Harrisism of writing long songs." At least not here, because *points to band name in URL*.
I don't even know what "excessive noodling" is supposed to mean, but I gather it means "there are more complex instrumental parts than I would like there to be." It's a weird criticism to see on Dream Theater Forums Dot Org, but it's definitely an opinion one could have. But I don't think it's something you can say amounts to a tendency of Harris's, because it's not a fact, it's an opinion. If you said "he tends to have long instrumental sections," I think that would be accurate. But, again, I don't think you're going to get as many people on the bandwagon of "oh I hope this album isn't dragged down by Harrisisms out of control, like having long instrumental sections." Again, *points to URL*
I feel like I've been arguing a lot with people who don't like the reunion era a lot lately, so I want to be clear: I don't particularly care if you don't like these albums. I'm not trying to change your mind about them. But I am kind of bothered by the pile-on of "oh, this is obviously bad and that is obviously bad, and the band has completely lost it" when most of it is really just that you personally don't like what they're doing. It's just so common, in my experience, for people to say this when older bands try something new, and the fans of the older material don't like the new thing they're trying. It's fine, you don't have to like it, but that doesn't make it bad, especially in a case like this, where obviously a lot of people do like it.
I also think a lot of the criticism directed at bands late in their career unfairly boxes them into a no-win scenario. If they write something that sounds like their old stuff, they're out of ideas and just doing lame repetitions of their former greatness. If they write something that sounds different, they're out of touch, they've lost it, they're doing something weird or boring that nobody cares about. Maiden does some of both and, instead of avoiding either losing proposition, they catch the criticisms of both of them. And I just think it's really lame that this stuff gets heaped on basically every band with more than 7-8 albums, especially because I tend to think the later-career work of a lot of artists is actually really interesting and often more refined than their breakout albums.
Topic: The Iron Maiden Thread v. The Merge of Souls (Read 570268 times)
