Any Ideas On A New Album

I didn't say progressive rock, I said progressive heavy rock and I do believe Steve has adressed to this fact before. Two different terms.

These Colours Don't Run, Brighter Than a Thousand Suns, The Longest Day, Lord of Light, Satellite 15, Isle of Avalon, Starblind are absolute progressive songs. (All of which has Adrian Smith on their credits, coincidence ? I think not.) The Reincarnation of Benjamin Breeg, The Legacy, El Dorado, Mother of Mercy, Coming Home, The Man Who Would Be King and When the Wild Wind Blows also has progressive edges on them, although not entirely.

The only songs that sounds like 80's Maiden in the last two albums are Different World, The Final Frontier and maybe The Alchemist.
 
I'm good with both (classic sound and progressive). It seems that they are shifting more toward the prog songs, the longer songs, though. Even Adrian has gotten into the act with Paschendaele and Isle of Avalon. It's good, though- it shows growth and there's no sense of complacency. The quick hitters like "Final Frontier" are good and help make that connection back to their 80s era songs. I think, but cannot prove, that the increase in song length and the number of longer (6 minutes+) songs on the albums might simply be the result of technology. Vinyl records generally limited them to 20 minutes a side, 40-ish minutes total. Now, CDs can hold up to 80 minutes. Granted, this has been the case for a decade or more, but with more music creators in the band and 3 guitarists (solos must be given out to all), they've found that having the extra time is good (for them). I like the short, tight songs of the past, but I also enjoy some extended musical interludes, where warranted. I have a friend who is a HUGE Dave Murray fan, but he doesn't like "The Man Who Would Be King" because it's too long, to meandering, etc. I really like it and point out to him that there are two, TWO incredible guitar harmony sections in that song. The extra song length allows for magic moments like that, so I'm good with some noodling. I'm not as much of a fan of the soft intro/outro that Steve likes, but I must say that the intro on "Starblind" is quite good. Bruce's singing and the lyrics on that part just get me.
 
Whatever. I don't like labelling music - I either like it or not. As long as Maiden continue to make music that I like, I wouldn't care if somebody calls it waltz. :D
 
What other Gers songs from the 90s compare favorably with any of the songs I mentioned from the 80s? I'll answer, since I've been asking questions- IMO, none.
There are some (IMO as well of course). In my top 50 I have an Adrian Smith selection on number 2!
Also on 19, 29, 30, 33, 36, 39, 40, 42, 44 and 45.
Janick's co-written ones are on: 7, 25, 26 and 27.
More here:http://forum.maidenfans.com/threads/forostars-top-50-iron-maiden-songs.22023/
What is the reception like in concert?
Answer- I saw them this summer and there was a noticeable dropoff in crowd reception to "ATSS."
Their loss and their ignorance. Perhaps they were wondering if they ever heard it before. If someone prefers to hear Run to the Hills every tour and doesn't get excited about a rare gem that's just plain ignorance. And it doesn't show much fandom either. People might call themselves a fan still, but when they don't care for a whole decade, I'd call them either stuck to the old days, either too neurotic on the current line-up, either both.
Now, that could simply be a factor of the American audience.
Yes indeed. Not everyone, but as you told, lots of them have a different appreciation: classics, classics, classics.
In South America it might have gone down a storm.
You bet it will everywhere else as well in 2013.
But it's still a matter of taste- we may never get to the answers you're looking for because everyone has different tastes. I hear the 90s material from Maiden, especially from X-Factor and VXI and find it lacking.
Yes, my opinion, but obviously others held the same opinion, judging from record sales and reception to the tours. And, as I said earlier, I don't think Gers is necessarily to blame, but there was enough drop off in talent between him and Adrian, Blaze and Bruce, and the music environment to cause Maiden to fall off the radar.
Of course Janick is not to blame. Other things were going on. The world was busy with other things, and especially in America. Maiden didn't write material which was easy to digest in a time when shorter song music (grunge etc.) was more popular.
Environment of the 90s aside, I don't think Maiden made strong, quality music, overall. I don't think it's that the material is overlooked for current tour setlists, I just don't think it compares well.
This is a personal opinion which -as you found out by now- differs from mine. I really dig the complex and dark work from those days.
Not sure what other questions about Gers I was supposed to answer (can't sift through all the others posts to find them while I'm replying here), but suffice it to say that in my opinion, he's not as strong a songwriter or guitarist as Adrian. Personal opinion? Probably, and I'll acknowledge as much.
Adrian wrote the least good songs on the Bruce albums and he's in great shape on the last two Maiden albums but on all previous records he did not write the best songs (more explanation on page 3). Personal opinion? Probably, and I'll acknowledge as much. ;-)
As for Gers lyrics contributions, I stand corrected. I did not know he contributed the lyrics to "The Pilgrim," though I do wonder why the music has a Middle Eastern flavor to it and the lyrics are about the "New World" and early European intrusion into the Americas.
Out of the box. ;-)
 
That Maiden box you're talking about ended quite a while ago.
You should listen to The Final Frontier (song) and El Dorado again, pretty standard rockers to me, fit the "Maiden box" perfectly.

I'm also not a huge fan of labels, I think having countless sub genres is rather silly, but I hardly see a difference between progressive rock and "progressive heavy rock". One's heavy and one isn't. If anything, Maiden is a heavy metal band with a bit of a progressive influence. But they've always been like that, just now they make longer songs.
 
You should listen to The Final Frontier (song) and El Dorado again, pretty standard rockers to me, fit the "Maiden box" perfectly.

I'm also not a huge fan of labels, I think having countless sub genres is rather silly, but I hardly see a difference between progressive rock and "progressive heavy rock". One's heavy and one isn't. If anything, Maiden is a heavy metal band with a bit of a progressive influence. But they've always been like that, just now they make longer songs.

And you should take a look at my other posts on this thread.

Progressive rock and progressive heavy rock are entirely different. One is progressive rock. Other is heavy rock with progressive elements which really is what Iron Maiden has been doing for a while.

Your point would be true if I said "heavy progressive rock". But it's "progressive heavy rock".

In this current metal scene, Iron Maiden really doesn't fit into that category anymore. 80's stuff did, AMOLAD and TFF don't. I still label them heavy metal in my archive, but that's only because Iron Maiden are considered a heavy metal band.

I'll go ahead and say this, if Iron Maiden were still a heavy metal band like in the 80's, I'm not sure I'd be caring about their recent stuff. It'd get old quickly. It'd be repetitive. Their change of sound was a perfect idea executed perfectly. With Blaze, they also had a perfect idea in changing the sound, executed perfectly on The X Factor and not that well on Virtual XI.

The fact that this band doesn't get stuck in where they are is probably the main reason why they're my favorite band. They didn't get stuck somewhere just because they succeeded on it. TNOTB-POM-P'S was a fabulous three album run in the same sound. They didn't get stuck on that sound, experimented with SIT and SSOASS successfully. They should've expanded their range of experiments with another album but Steve decided to go back to roots which is why I see Adrian's point in leaving the band. No Prayer and Fear of the Dark were failed "back-to-usual" attempts. But at the same time, Virtual XI was a brave experiment which failed. (blending in dark content of TXF with classic Maiden sound) I respect failed experiments but not the usage of the same formula over and over again which exactly is why I respect Metallica's career decisions over Megadeth's. That's another story though.
 
Progressive rock and progressive heavy rock are entirely different. One is progressive rock. Other is heavy rock with progressive elements which really is what Iron Maiden has been doing for a while.
I don't think there is such a thing as heavy rock, it's either Hard Rock or Heavy Metal. If there is a heavy rock, please explain that one to me.

Your point would be true if I said "heavy progressive rock". But it's "progressive heavy rock".
This is a silly argument. I think progressive should stay out of the name altogether. And if we are calling it that, I believe Iron Maiden would always fit into that category, from the very beginning, not just 00's and up.

In this current metal scene, Iron Maiden really doesn't fit into that category anymore. 80's stuff did, AMOLAD and TFF don't. I still label them heavy metal in my archive, but that's only because Iron Maiden are considered a heavy metal band.
I label them as heavy metal too. Those albums are still metal, even if other stuff is heavier.

I'll go ahead and say this, if Iron Maiden were still a heavy metal band like in the 80's, I'm not sure I'd be caring about their recent stuff. It'd get old quickly. It'd be repetitive. Their change of sound was a perfect idea executed perfectly. With Blaze, they also had a perfect idea in changing the sound, executed perfectly on The X Factor and not that well on Virtual XI.
Sure, I agree with that. There is no argument against their sound changing, but it hasn't changed in such a dramatic way that it is something completely different now, it still has elements that made Maiden so great in the first place (Yes some of these are prog rock elements) just presented in a different way.

The fact that this band doesn't get stuck in where they are is probably the main reason why they're my favorite band. They didn't get stuck somewhere just because they succeeded on it. TNOTB-POM-P'S was a fabulous three album run in the same sound. They didn't get stuck on that sound, experimented with SIT and SSOASS successfully. They should've expanded their range of experiments with another album but Steve decided to go back to roots which is why I see Adrian's point in leaving the band. No Prayer and Fear of the Dark were failed "back-to-usual" attempts.
I sorta mentioned my thoughts on this in a post I made in 100k thread.

But at the same time, Virtual XI was a brave experiment which failed. (blending in dark content of TXF with classic Maiden sound) I respect failed experiments but not the usage of the same formula over and over again which exactly is why I respect Metallica's career decisions over Megadeth's. That's another story though.
That's a good example. Megadeth is one of the best at what they do, that is straight up thrash metal. Their last two albums were great, I thought they were right up there with classic 'Deth. If it ain't broke, why fix it? Iron Maiden was at risk growing a few times in their career, and they did try different stuff, and that's what has kept them interesting today.
 
I respect failed experiments but not the usage of the same formula over and over again which exactly is why I respect Metallica's career decisions over Megadeth's. That's another story though.

Here's my 2 eurocents; Metallica did change, it's normal for artists to change. However they always changed into something that was quite popular at the time. Black album came out when metal world was saturated by epicness, theatrics, "wankery". Alternative rock at it's peak popularity, they cut their hair, change their logo, dress up as a bunch of idiots with makeup, and release two albums far closer to alt rock than heavy / thrash metal. Nu metal, no problem, jump on the wagon and release St. Anger. Resurgence of "classic" metal, release Death Magnetic.

That kind of stuff is what Rolling Stones and U2 do, and i'll never call them rock bands. They are pop rock. They have their elements, the music is certainly rock in style, but they're always piggybacking on the current wave of popular music.

So, there, I said it - Metallica is pop metal.

Regarding Megadeth, Dave always sought to "defeat" Metallica. Metallica was not influential on Megadeth, but it was crucial to give direction to next Megadeth's album. Only Megadeth was destined to be faster and heavier.

...and justice for all -> Peace Sells (the fastest, the heaviest, the most complex)
Black -> Countdown to Extinction (shorter, groovier songs)
Load -> Youthanasia (incorporating alt. rock elements)
Reload -> Cryptic Writings ( - || - )

Since Cryptic Writings, Dave decided to play it safe and just do plain old heavy metal. A decision that spawned many good songs, such as Duke Nukem, Dread And The Fugitive Mind, Washington Is Next, etc...far more good metal songs than Metallica did in last 20 years.

Now, regarding Iron Maiden, their change was completely opposite. In 1993, they changed into something that was completely unpopular. Album opener is 11 minute long. X Factor reviews were negative, attendance at shows was going down, but it was their way, they didn't care if you bought the record or a concert ticket. The current style is an evolution, 15 year long evolution. It has been significantly boosted by return of Adrian and Bruce, but what you hear on The Final Frontier has more roots on X Factor than any of '80s albums.
 
Many of my points have been misunderstood once again, but I have no intention to continue this debate about Maiden any further. Just one thing, "heavy rock" is a term Dave Murray and Steve Harris has used several times in their interviews, describing Iron Maiden. Steve Harris even said that he didn't intend to create an heavy metal band, he intended to create a heavy rock band. I think it was in the Early Days documentary, I'm not sure, though.

I don't listen to Megadeth anymore because they don't excite me anymore. Their albums sound the same. I checked out Thirteen for two times, it sounded nothing special. Same with Endgame. Same with United Abominations.

But at the same time, while Metallica flagrantly failed with some of their experiments, I'm incredibly excited about their next album.

Long story short, I'm against "if ain't broke, why fix it" philosophy. I hate it. That's probably why I call myself a progressive music fan rather than a metal or rock fan anyway.
 
Eh, you know what "That's your opinion" means. I'm not Captain Obvious, I'm Flash.

Metallica has always been more exciting than Megadeth because they have been brave all their career long, unlike Megadeth.

And Zare, I don't see it that way. Metal fans are probably the most close-minded fans in the music world, sadly. And change always makes the majority of them mad.
 
Hey, Flash, what do you think about Chinese Democracy?

I agree that I'd prefer a band attempt an experiment and fail than consistently put out the same stuff (*coughAC/DCcough*). I just happen to find none of Metallica's experiments remotely interesting personally.
 
No. Megadeth is more exciting than Metallica, at least after Black Album. And Megadeth did change their music, Endgame was like technical thrash metal and 13 was different. Metallica was no brave, was hungry for money. And I do like Metallica, but Megadeth is better.
 
Hey, Flash, what do you think about Chinese Democracy?

I agree that I'd prefer a band attempt an experiment and fail than consistently put out the same stuff (*coughAC/DCcough*). I just happen to find none of Metallica's experiments remotely interesting personally.

Never heard it, sadly. I'll check it out the first chance I get.

Exactly, AC/DC. The masters of putting out the same stuff over and over again. The lack of diversity and experimentation in their music is the reason why personally don't care about them.

Well, Metallica had four experiments so far. First was bringing the technical element of classic thrash to the fore, doing a lot more complex music than they did before. (rhymed accidentally :D) We got ...And Justice for All as a result and I think it's a masterpiece. Second experiment was leaving the thrash roots to create a groove-oriented heavy metal album. Black Album's main target was to make people love it the first time they hear it and sell records. I like Black Album (absolutely not as much as the 80's albums though) and you really can't argue that they failed in their attempts with that album. I mean, it's one of the best selling records of all time. The third experiment was to leave metal behind, doing hard rock with country/blues blended in. You may say that it was just to keep the record sales high, but they could've easily done another groove-oriented, basic heavy metal album to do that. They did what they wanted to do, went ahead and did two albums with those aspects. And that caused some hardcore metal fans to stop listening to Metallica. Believe it or not, hardcore metal society is almost as big of a target as basic mainstream society. I personally find ReLoad bad and Load mediocre/good. The band was going through rough times, they again did what they wanted to do, bravely went ahead and did a modern sounding, brutal album with no solos or particular melodies. Did they succeed ? No, St. Anger was a horrific album. But it kept the band alive. I wasn't listening to Metallica back when Death Magnetic came out, but I'm sure I'd psyched to hear it. I now am excited to hear their next album, just because of their constant change of sound. And I've heard that the new album will be nothing like Death Magnetic, which stands up for my argument once again. I loved Death Magnetic, by the way.

Experiment success ratio for Metallica : 2/4.

On the other hand, Megadeth did only one experiment in their career and it was Risk. (You may argue that with Countdown to Extinction, they did an experiment, but Megadeth always had pure heavy metal influences in their style - the reason why they always sounded more melodic than Metallica) Mind you, it was Lars Ulrich, yeah the drummer of Metallica who told Dave Mustaine to take more risks with his music hence the title. Risk flagrantly failed. It was almost as bad as St. Anger and that's saying something. After failing with this one particular experiment, Dave went back to roots, started putting out albums that really sound the same. Of course there are some differences but hey, that's an other album we're talking about. Not a remastered version. I'm talking about huge breakout changes.

Experiment success ratio for Megadeth : 0/1.
 
Well, I can't type paragraphs about the subject, but I can say that there are two bands I've tried and tried for years to get into: Metallica and Dream Theater. But even though I can acknowledge, "Oh, it sounds like they're trying to do something different here," I still get bored. I like a handful of songs from each band, but I get bored by the others. Admittedly, I still haven't heard everything by Dream Theater (I'll be getting to that in a few weeks or so), but I have heard all of Metallica's releases.

Regarding Risk, I know I'm in the absolute minority, but I like it. As long as I ignore the band name, I enjoy it.

By the way, I'm not sure if they have a Dollar Tree in Turkey, but Chinese Democracy is being sold there for $1. :( Such a great album doesn't deserve that fate. Another case of "ignore the band name and enjoy."
 
Metal fans are probably the most close-minded fans in the music world, sadly. And change always makes the majority of them mad.
You really think low of metal fans or maybe even metal itself. What excites you to be here then?
Either you think we are very exceptional, either you must realize that you're dead wrong, either we are very close minded.

Metalfans are usually very open minded and laid back, with relatively seen hardly any trouble at concerts and festivals.

I know of several metalfans who also (later at some point) checked other genres such as jazz or classical music.
I yet still have to meet the first jazz fan or classical music fan who later got into metal.
 
You really should hear more from DT. People say stuff like they're too technical, they're showing off, they're masturbating with their instruments, they're emotionless, they're pretentious. I disagree with all of them, my second favorite band.
 
Back
Top