Is Iron Maiden overproduced?

nuno_c

nuno_c

A hollow universe in space
A lot of bands seem to have some (or at least one) albums that most people consider to be overproduced.

In Iron Maiden's case, i really can't a find an album that is overproduced. Do you think otherwise? Come forward!
 
Interesting question. I'd say probably not.

I never have the idea that the songs sound too full (too many layers) or that I hear corrections done afterwards (e.g. autotuned vocals or insanely good drums that never happen live).
 
In what manner? There are soft guitar synthesizers in the music. The guitars themselves might not sound as rough as in e.g. the debut album or on Piece of Mind (the album with the "biggest" rhythm guitars). But is this overproduction? The synths do not sound dominant. I hear them clearly in the beginning of the album of course, but the sound never pushes away the rest. It enhances the album. It is done in sync as well. It gives another layer and attributes to the feel, of atmosphere.

Another angle is that some people find Somewhere in Time a first nod to sounding commercial. But that's more the nature of the singles, the way the songs are written. This might not have anything to do with producing, unless some last moment decisions were taken in the production stage.

Another thing I have read: Is it too busy?

Well, Maiden is fast on this record. There are some very fast riffs and rhythms. But busy? I wouldn't say it is as busy as e.g. Paschendale or Dance of Death with their orchestral approach. Or Flash of the Blade with its multitude of guitar layers. There are various other songs in the reunion era that sound busier than most songs from Somewhere in Time.
 
Last edited:
I think a combination of all of the above...

I'm no expert on production and sound, we'd need Yax or someone else in here to explain this...but to me Somewhere In Time just sounds 80s! Out of all of their albums, this one just sounds exactly like it was written in 86, which it is :p

Like I said, I think it's a combination of all of the above, but the sound to me is just different from other Maiden albums....I swear I can even hear a bit of 80s echo on Nicko's snare.

Could be that they wanted to go all sci-fi with this album so they used all the techniques they could in the studio and it comes out a little overproduced looking back......
 
They used one different technique (synthesized bass and guitars). Does that make an album overproduced?
On the next album, they might have gone a step further. Real keyboards.
 
It's all the reverb and layered guitars. Everything sounds really lush and big. It's the sort of thing you can't really replicate live. For Maiden's standards, it can definitely sound overproduced. That's not a negative thing, it's part of why that album sounds so special.
 
Mosh said:
It's all the reverb and layered guitars. Everything sounds really lush and big. It's the sort of thing you can't really replicate live. For Maiden's standards, it can definitely sound overproduced. That's not a negative thing, it's part of why that album sounds so special.
Click to expand...

Agree. And all of the reverb, layering, the big and lush, warm sound is exactly why I think it sounds very, very 80s!
 
Forostar said:
They used one different technique (synthesized bass and guitars). Does that make an album overproduced?
On the next album, they might have gone a step further. Real keyboards.
Click to expand...


the main guitar tone came from using Gallien Krueger 250ML amps which ultimately gave it that unique sound and they had lots of chorus and reverb in it and it does sound the most 80s of anything they did. They continued using the GK 250ML for Seventh Son which was not as powerful sounding or effective as SIT. LOVE that album and the tone too. Playing those songs on regular amps doesn't sound right
 
I actually think not even that album ultimatly sounds overproduced.

I think about it this way, and see if you agree with me: An album is OVERproduced when you use, edit etc things without any apparent reason. In Maiden's case, even though they have simpler but also more epic songs, they usually produce their music in a way that serves it's tone. And that, i think, is not overproducing but actually serving the production with the music and vice-versa.

Don't know if ivexplained it well xD
 
Overproduced gives me the idea that too much has been done with it, or too much is put into it. The result has imo a fake / bothering itch to it.
Mosh said:
It's the sort of thing you can't really replicate live.
Click to expand...
Since I (and I assume way more people) prefer the studio versions over the live versions of most of the Somewhere in Time songs; that does not point towards an overproduced factor.
 
Forostar said:
Since I (and I assume way more people) prefer the studio versions over the live versions of most of the Somewhere in Time songs; that does not point towards an overproduced factor.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how preferring the studio versions has anything to do with whether or not something is overproduced. It's not a negative term, it just means that a lot was done in the studio to give the album its sound. Compare this to an album like AMOLAD where very little was done in the studio to give the album a "live" feel.
 
Since live, the songs are stripped from the sound that people like. It's hard to argue that the preferred (original studio) version is an overproduced one. Overproduced clearly has a negative ring to it. IMO at least. I mean, "over" isn't in the word for nothing.

I found this, to make my view on the term more clear:
the idea that a record producer or mastering engineer has made "unnecessary" additions or changes to a record in the production process, and in doing so has decreased the quality or enjoyability of the music.
Click to expand...
 
Forostar said:
Since live, the songs are stripped from the sound that people like. It's hard to argue that the preferred (original studio) version is an overproduced one. Overproduced clearly has a negative ring to it. IMO at least. I mean, "over" isn't in the word for nothing.

I found this, to make my view on the term more clear:
Click to expand...
Exactly what i tried to explain and do think ;)
 
Forostar said:
Since live, the songs are stripped from the sound that people like. It's hard to argue that the preferred (original studio) version is an overproduced one. Overproduced clearly has a negative ring to it. IMO at least. I mean, "over" isn't in the word for nothing.

I found this, to make my view on the term more clear:
the idea that a record producer or mastering engineer has made "unnecessary" additions or changes to a record in the production process, and in doing so has decreased the quality or enjoyability of the music.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Going by your definition above, Forostar, I'd say that most fans (positive) of the studio SiT are not going to define it as overproduced; since, it could be argued, the quality & enjoyabilty have not been decreased by that mix (--as defined by your quote). However, it's clearly been produced to within an inch of it's life; Maiden have never (really) replicated the sound of SiT live. Hence, as most people speculate, why they play so little of it live.

One could be more critical though. If you don't like the idea that Maiden made an album (like SiT) and can't replicate the sound of it live (if you accept this argument), then maybe the term overproduced is apt. Maybe, to you, that very fact (can't replicate live) decreases your enjoyment of the album; and perhaps you view that quality as a kind of fake "studio" quality, because the musicians themselves did not produce that sound.

Still, I have no idea if you, Foro, think it's overproduced (by your own definition) or not.
 
My favouite 'sounding' album is Somewhere In Time - though am not such a fan of many of the album's songs, myself.
I think it has a vibe to it, that admittedly is not captured live. But I see no reason why a studio album should be produced within the parameters of being replicated live. I want a studio album to sound as best at it can, regardless of how possible it is to replicate its sound in the live arena.

Knowing that Adrian had a big part is 'upping' the sound of that particular album and this was a one off incident, I can't help feeling that most of Maiden's albums have not been mixed/produced to their full potential.
 
A little bit surprised no-one's mentioned Brave New World. It has a lot of overdubs and harmonies that are impossible to recreate live, so if there's one album that's been overproduced it's that. Bruce vocals are made to sound much fuller than on any other album because of this, and there's a lot of reverb and delays on the guitar-solos, making at least some of them sound so much better and cleaner than they would have done with the production of The Final Frontier, as an example. I have no idea how they made the drums sound the way they do, but I have not heard much like it. Both the kick and snare are crystal clear and pack quite a punch, but without sounding like the average triggered and sampled drums everyone's been doing the last decade. The room the recorded in must have been huge. On top of that, there's a lot of keyboards on there, some obvious ("Blood Brothers") some less ("The Wicker Man").

Sure, they definitely tracked "live" without a click-track, of that there could be no doubt, but there's been a lot of work after. You wouldn't expect less for the big comeback and return to form-album, and I really do like the album.

nibblet said:
I want a studio album to sound as best at it can, regardless of how possible it is to replicate its sound in the live arena.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree with this. But then we have the question of what "best" is. Some might argue that the live-sounding is the best sound.
 
I believe the drums on BNW are actually sample-replaced with samples from Nicko's own kit...
 
BNW is truly a phenomenal album and I think they did a spectacular job doing those songs live! It does sound nearly perfect though just like Somewhere in Time, though that had less fascinating results live.
 
The producer would also have an input on performance and arrangements, right? It's not just about the sound. I agree with most of the posts above, I don't think Maiden have ever been overproduced.

But, I vastly prefer the sound of the Shirley albums, they are heavier, crunchier and more organic-sounding.
I vastly prefer the performances and arrangements of the Birch albums. The songs are taut, even the epics, and there is no slack in the performances either.
I think both producers are immensely talented in their own way, and Maiden albums suffered with neither of them at the desk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top