Iron Maiden's integrity
- Thread starter nuno_c
- Start date
Well that's the problem: For you the "We're sticking to what we like" thing is a financial move but for a lot of us it's a personal integrity thing too, separate from the brand of it all. So you have to expect that people want to discuss the personal integrity aspect, which is what the initial discussion was anyway.
The Flash
Dennis Wilcock did 9/11
People are free to discuss whatever they want. However, when people are quoting my posts and arguing with my idea, doesn't my idea set the precedent for the conversation? All in all, I did shift the conversation somewhere else by calling integrity in music a fad. This thread has the grand assumption that integrity exists and asks us to discuss its varying degrees.
Last edited:
Sorry Flash, I don't want to comb through the entire thread: is it your contention that integrity in the music business does not exist? Is there any commercial enterprise where you feel it does exist, or are you saying the very fact something is being sold automatically rules out integrity?
The Flash
Dennis Wilcock did 9/11
I'd be a fool to argue that something being sold rules out integrity. This is about the effects of commercialism to creativity and aspirations. Music is an industry that feeds off a crowd, one where statements, acts, lawsuits etc. can have astronomical effects on brand name and market value. In a place like that, I don't think integrity is a factor. And when it's passed off as a factor, it's merely a financial move.
A ton of people seem to value integrity, "keeping it real", sticking to guns a lot. I personally do not think it's an important issue. It's entertainment, these people are famous, I don't expect them to do anything do "keep it real". They don't need to. But when people value it as much as they do, some artists are going to use it to their advantage.
-----
I'd like to go back to the thread's original idea and dive into what I think is an example of what makes Maiden lack artistic integrity and value finances over creative aspirations at least at some point. (Once again, not a slap on them, I think it's fine.)
Fear of the Dark's performance in Billboard Albums Chart: 12th
The X Factor's performance in Billboard Albums Chart: 147th
Virtual XI's performance in Billboard Albums Chart: 124th
Tattooed Millionaire's performance in Billboard Albums Chart: 100th (might look lower in comparison, but a great performance for a debut solo record)
Balls to Picasso's performance in Billboard Albums Chart: 185th
Accident of Birth's performance in Billboard Albums Chart: Didn't even make it
The Chemical Wedding's performance in Billboard Albums Chart: Didn't even make it
Bruce and Steve took jabs at each other throughout the 90s. It's obvious Steve's ideal would be continuing success without Bruce and keeping Blaze around. It's obvious that Bruce gained the confidence in his solo efforts with Tattooed Millionaire's sales and had the guts to leave the money-making machine that is Maiden. It didn't go as planned financially for both parties. Steve kept Blaze in the band despite the economical failures at first. Then Bruce says that he'd like to come back, Steve fires Blaze and replaces him with Bruce. It doesn't matter that it worked out. It doesn't matter that they eventually liked the results and the experience. It was a financial move. Every band aspires to sell records, every band wants to reach bigger audiences. And they can't help but let finance effect their decisions if it comes down to that. And it's completely FINE.
Last edited:
nuno_c
A hollow universe in space
I think it's quite simple.... In a lot of ways, "keeping it real" is producing music that you are passionate about and not according to whatever trend sells the best in that year or whatever. Iron Maiden keep it real.
But btw, why do you think steve would prefer to keep Blaze instead of Bruce? Never quite got that whole Steve versus Bruce thing. Is there bad blood between the two?
harrisdevot
Priest of the Holy Wristband
According to the Early Days DVD, Bruce's integration has not been the easiest, him desperately trying to get the centre spot. Most of all, after quitting the band, Bruce badmouthed Maiden and their inability to renew themselves ; he openly criticized Steve for wanting to rule everything. On the over hand, Steve questionned Bruce's integrity and said that, after turning his back on Maiden and Metal, he came back to the genre because he failed to get success with his new orientation. To say the least, Steve was not enthusiastic about a reunion at first.
nuno_c
A hollow universe in space
I think i understand both of them and where they were coming from with their opinions at a certain point in time. At least since the reunion i think they are all really happy with where they are musically
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
I don't think any of these individuals will deny that they were happy with where they were musically during the Blaze years. Bruce leaving Maiden had to do with his artistic values. He wanted to do something without "father figure" Maiden. It was refreshing, liberating, he was happy with his music, he wanted to build something new. Looking back, people can always say that they didn't like something they did (and we know that Bruce prefers Chemical Wedding over most other stuff he's done), but he certainly wasn't unhappy thoughout the whole period, musically. An exception could be Shoot All the Clowns, a song which had to be made because the record company demanded an Aerosmith type of song.
I've a lot of respect for Bruce and I don't think his integrity can be questioned.
Every time he pilots he has a couple of hundred lives in his hands. He's creating jobs (and paying tax) via his aerospace industry thing in Wales. Attempting to find solutions to Africa's transport system by the use of airships.
I wouldn't have him round for dinner if peas were on the menu though.
On stage I think he releases his inner child which is great. I couldn't have done that at half his age.
The recent too small box set is a terrible cock-up, although not strictly the bands fault. So Spinal Tap. "Making a big thing out of it would've been a good idea".
Every time he pilots he has a couple of hundred lives in his hands. He's creating jobs (and paying tax) via his aerospace industry thing in Wales. Attempting to find solutions to Africa's transport system by the use of airships.
I wouldn't have him round for dinner if peas were on the menu though.
On stage I think he releases his inner child which is great. I couldn't have done that at half his age.
The recent too small box set is a terrible cock-up, although not strictly the bands fault. So Spinal Tap. "Making a big thing out of it would've been a good idea".
It's always got to be a balancing act between artistic integrity and running a business. Even if the guys decided they wanted to give everything away free, or experiment with all musical possibilities, commercial or not, they're still running a business and have commitments and contracts to that effect. It could even be on the wrong side of the law if you run a business into the ground, certainly it could go against you acting as the director of another business.
Isn't Maiden's apparent integrity actually part of their appeal/one of their selling points? You still hear people who have oodles of respect for Maiden because they like the image of band/frontman that doesn't give a toss what anyone else thinks.
Isn't Maiden's apparent integrity actually part of their appeal/one of their selling points? You still hear people who have oodles of respect for Maiden because they like the image of band/frontman that doesn't give a toss what anyone else thinks.
I think this is absolute true, and the fact the music industry cashes in on this for many bands, including Maiden, is one of Flash's points.
I also don't think there is any integrity lost sacrificed something that's true
CriedWhenBrucieLeft
Meme Only Account
I think Flash (but please correct me, Flash) has a problem with the idea of integrity (as he defines it) in a commercial environment generally. Read what he said early on:
That might run the risk of conflating two slightly different things though: decisions influenced by purely commercial considerations & those influenced by audience considerations i.e. a band, when writing, thinking about their music in terms of commercial success vs. a band, when writing, thinking about their (target) audience/fans. I suppose it depends on whether you're changing what you're doing. Of course, as Brigs points out, the latter (considering your fans/audience) may itself be a commercial decision. The two are certainly linked.
In true art (creating) neither of these two things (money & audience) would be considered when making music though. That would be integrity, from a purely artistic perspective; although, perhaps just in my view of what art is...
I'm perhaps inserting some of my own views here though. Sorry Flash!
I'm guessing he's suggesting that all bands/artists making money from their music have sacrificed some element of integrity, since almost all decisions they make have a commercial element to them. Thus, integrity in the music industry, as compared to normal life/people, is hardly worth discussing.
That might run the risk of conflating two slightly different things though: decisions influenced by purely commercial considerations & those influenced by audience considerations i.e. a band, when writing, thinking about their music in terms of commercial success vs. a band, when writing, thinking about their (target) audience/fans. I suppose it depends on whether you're changing what you're doing. Of course, as Brigs points out, the latter (considering your fans/audience) may itself be a commercial decision. The two are certainly linked.
In true art (creating) neither of these two things (money & audience) would be considered when making music though. That would be integrity, from a purely artistic perspective; although, perhaps just in my view of what art is...
I'm perhaps inserting some of my own views here though. Sorry Flash!
The Flash
Dennis Wilcock did 9/11
This was my exact point when I called it a fad.
CA Bryers
Ancient Mariner
The only reason I'd think that keeping Blaze over Bruce (being a good idea) from Steve's point of view would be that with Blaze, Maiden was entirely Steve's band again. He was more the focal point in interviews again, and even onstage Blaze wasn't terribly assertive in being the focal point. But I think ideally for Steve, Bruce never would have left. Around the time he was leaving in '93, Steve said he didn't get why Bruce couldn't do his solo stuff and Maiden. Then when the second leg of the Fear of the Dark tour kicked off, Bruce phoned in a LOT of his performances, apparently. "Bring Your Daughter...to the Slaughter" on A Real Live One in particular, Bruce sounds absolutely bored on it. In the official biography, Steve says some shows Bruce just mumbled through some songs, and wasn't even singing sometimes. By the end of the tour, there was a lot of bitterness, and afterwards, Bruce started slagging Maiden off as being tired, stuck in a rut, etc., which is why he had to leave, or else face the risk of being a parody of himself.
Steve got into the back-and-forth a bit, saying rather famously in the official bio that Bruce would write a country and western album if he thought it would sell...and Fun Fact, he wasn't too far off the mark. On the scrapped Keith Olson album that Bruce wrote and recorded on the way to Balls to Picasso, there's a song called "Cadillac Gas Mask" that...well, it has a good amount of country twang to it. If you listen to that album, it kind of shows Bruce needs a strong musical direction from someone else for him to take it and run with it. The Keith Olson album is all over the place, bouncing from goth rock to world music, and several other styles with no direction whatsoever. But I digress.
Anyway, when they got back together, Steve did ask Bruce if he was just going to bugger off again after an album, and Bruce convinced him he was back to make Maiden huge again. Seems there hasn't been any dissent since then. I imagine Bruce figures he had his shot at making it on his own, it didn't work out, he was no spring chicken anymore even at that point, and coming back to Maiden was the only viable option if he was going to make money as a performer. I don't know if I'd go so far as to question his integrity in the choice, since he does seem pretty happy making the music Maiden is churning out these days. But it doesn't take much imagination to see how money very likely factored into it.
I get the impression that Bruce and Steve don't interact much out of Maiden and aren't really pals the way Dave and Nicko are, for example. But they value their work in Maiden and know they're a force to be reckoned with together. And I think in recent years Bruce has learned to let his ego take a step back and Steve is willing to give Bruce a bit more room. It doesn't seem like a lot of bands would be able to handle that without egos imploding the band.
Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
5 years with Blaze saved Iron Maiden, I think, because it let everyone get their heads on straight.
CA Bryers
Ancient Mariner
That's probably the best perspective on the Blaze years I think I've heard.