NO PRAYER FOR THE DYING - Your thoughts…

[Eddie's Uncle]

NPFTDs reception is another good example of what I call "the law of legendary bands": just as with any legendary rock/metal band, there are some opinions that become traditions, then unquestioned "truth".
They are said, written and proclaimed over and over again until they bear the impression of "facts". Many listeners new to the genre get exposed to those "laws" before they get exposed to the actual album or band. So when they listen to it the first time, they do it with the mindset "this is the greatest band / worst album / insert myth here". When I heard actually listened to Celtic Fosts "Cold Lake" for the first time, I had already read and heard that it is supposedly the worst album of all time for several years.
Some people judge for themselves, but many people just agree to the common opinion.
And thus the myth lives on, despite being totally subjective, or in some cases even factually wrong.
Some examples:

- The Beatles were the most important and most innovative band of all time (factually wrong)
- Led Zep are one of the greatest bands ever (completely subjective)
- Metallica started Thrash Metal (factually wrong)
- everyone loves The Doors
- Deep Purple are the best british hard rock band (completely subjective)
- NPFTD is the worst Maiden album (completely subjective)

When you are new to the scene, and everyone told you NPFTD is Maiden's turd, then you will likely put on the album with he thouht "ok lets check out their worst one". So I think the reason why his album gets lots of dislike to this day is partly psychological. Of course, I am not trying to say people are brainwashed zombies without brains (well, Trump voters are), but it is a fact that our brain processes new information with he influence of the mindset, and traditional opinions have an impact on this mindset.

 

[Vaenyr]

NPFTDs reception is another good example of what I call "the law of legendary bands": just as with any legendary rock/metal band, there are some opinions that become traditions, then unquestioned "truth".
They are said, written and proclaimed over and over again until they bear the impression of "facts". Many listeners new to the genre get exposed to those "laws" before they get exposed to the actual album or band. So when they listen to it the first time, they do it with the mindset "this is the greatest band / worst album / insert myth here". When I heard actually listened to Celtic Fosts "Cold Lake" for the first time, I had already read and heard that it is supposedly the worst album of all time for several years.
Some people judge for themselves, but many people just agree to the common opinion.
And thus the myth lives on, despite being totally subjective, or in some cases even factually wrong.
Some examples:

- The Beatles were the most important and most innovative band of all time (factually wrong)
- Led Zep are one of the greatest bands ever (completely subjective)
- Metallica started Thrash Metal (factually wrong)
- everyone loves The Doors
- Deep Purple are the best british hard rock band (completely subjective)
- NPFTD is the worst Maiden album (completely subjective)

When you are new to the scene, and everyone told you NPFTD is Maiden's turd, then you will likely put on the album with he thouht "ok lets check out their worst one". So I think the reason why his album gets lots of dislike to this day is partly psychological. Of course, I am not trying to say people are brainwashed zombies without brains (well, Trump voters are), but it is a fact that our brain processes new information with he influence of the mindset, and traditional opinions have an impact on this mindset.

Many of those examples are clearly hyperbolic. If you change them a bit, like "The Beatles were one of the most important and innovative band of all time" it's a true statement. Or "Metallica are one of the first bands to establish Thrash Metal". Statements on the internet shouldn't be always read 100% literal.

That said, I agree with the overall statement. Had a discussion with a friend a while ago who never had an issue with the snare sound on St. Anger and was surprised when he saw all the memes about that.

One of these "truths" for Maiden is that Live After Death is the best live album. It's legendary, don't get me wrong, but I've noticed that many newer fans who are just getting into Maiden often end up preferring Rock In Rio or Flight 666. Obviously entirely anecdotal, but still an interesting topic.

 

[07-SMS:A1L]

BNW had 8 out of 10 for example, DOD 6 out of 11, AMOLAD was played in full, TFF had half, TBOS had 7 out of 11 played live and Senjutsu 7 out of 10.

Having 8 out of 10 BNW songs in the set can not really be compared to having 7 out of 8 songs of VXI in the set lol. There are better and there are worse albums to base a tour on, and even if I personally like No Prayer and Virtual XI they are no where near AMOLAD, BNW and TBOS.

 

[Vaenyr]

Having 8 out of 10 BNW songs in the set can not really be compared to having 7 out of 8 songs of VXI in the set lol. There are better and there are worse albums to base a tour on, and even if I personally like No Prayer and Virtual XI they are no where near AMOLAD, BNW and TBOS.

That's completely subjective and I was talking purely about how Maiden sets ups their setlists, regardless of perceived quality of the songs. They've always (well again, with the exception of FOTD) played the majority of their newest release live.

Considering that Blaze struggled a ton with Bruce's material it makes sense that they'd double down on their newest album and play one more than the average of 6 songs per 8-song albums. The explanation is pretty simple. Also, DLTTEOAS was dropped pretty quickly so it's not like the entire tour was 7 VXI songs.

 

[Eddie's Uncle]

even if I personally like No Prayer and Virtual XI they are no where near AMOLAD, BNW and TBOS.

I disagree, BNW and NP are pretty much same level for me, I even rate NP slightly higher, and AMOLAD / BOS lower. BOS isnt clearly better than VXI. Better siund, yes, better vocals, yes. Better songs? Not really.

 

[Prowler]

- The Beatles were the most important and most innovative band of all time (factually wrong)
- Led Zep are one of the greatest bands ever (completely subjective)
- Metallica started Thrash Metal (factually wrong)
- everyone loves The Doors
- Deep Purple are the best british hard rock band (completely subjective)
- NPFTD is the worst Maiden album (completely subjective)

The Beatles of course were the most important band of all time. Maybe not the most innovative, but they influenced more people. Metallica were one of the first thrash bands. So these 2 statements are 99% facts.
The rest are subjective, indeed.
NPFTD isn't the worst Maiden album. Surely most people will say that Virtual XI is the worst. IMO all the 90s Maiden albums aren't as good as the 80s ones or the reunion ones, but that's subjective.

 

[Eddie's Uncle]

The Beatles of course were the most important band of all time. Maybe not the most innovative, but they influenced more people. Metallica were one of the first thrash bands. So these 2 statements are 99% facts.

No, thats a myth, not facts. Thats exactly what I mean: people accept these myths as factual truth bc they get repeated over and over and over, but there is not one statistic or actual proof to back them up. Especially when it comes to innovation. Beatles neither invented Beat music, nor the psychedelic stuff on later albums. They were in fact very innovative with the use of studio technology. But thats not what they are praised for. The Beatles were very important and influential, but neither the most influential or the most important band of all time. How can one even measure this? Especially when it comes to rock music, the Stones were at least as influential, if not more. The Beatles were more commercially successful and more popular! But thats not the same thing as influential or innovative. Probably they were more influential to pop than to rock, but thats not the same as "most important of all time".

Metallica were the first band to be successful with thrash, and among the early bands. Fact. But the common myth is that they pretty much started the genre, and that's simply not true. They were preceded by Anthrax, Slayer, Venom, Exciter, Exodus and some others. They also were no thrash band when they started, they turned into one when Dave Mustaine joined.

The rest are subjective, indeed.
NPFTD isn't the worst Maiden album. Surely most people will say that Virtual XI is the worst. IMO all the 90s Maiden albums aren't as good as the 80s ones or the reunion ones, but that's subjective.

Exactly.

 

[07-SMS:A1L]

I disagree, BNW and NP are pretty much same level for me, I even rate NP slightly higher, and AMOLAD / BOS lower. BOS isnt clearly better than VXI. Better siund, yes, better vocals, yes. Better songs? Not really.

I'm sure theres a reason why BNW songs are revisited more often than NP and VXI. But I would also perfer NP and VXI stuff over the best of tour coming this summer.

 

[Vaenyr]

I'm sure theres a reason why BNW songs are revisited more often than NP and VXI. But I would also perfer NP and VXI stuff over the best of tour coming this summer.

NPFTD is all but forgotten, but VXI (thanks to The Clansman making the LOTB setlist) is actually pretty comparable to BNW inclusions. The gulf isn't as big as you portray it as

 

[07-SMS:A1L]

VXI is actually pretty comparable to BNW inclusions. The gulf isn't as big as you portray it as

Seems like you are due for a Maiden history lesson. In 1998, Maiden attempted to do a Blaze Bayley-era focused set, but both Don’t Look to the Eyes of a Stranger and Fortunes of War were dropped after just a week of touring. Blood on the World’s Hands and The Aftermath were played once but didn’t survive past the first tour date. Lord of the Flies was dropped 50% of the shows. The Educated Fool was the first to be cut at festival gigs.

After the Virtual XI tour, the material from that album was rarely played live. Futureal made it through one tour with Bruce on vocals. Since BNW's release, only The Clansman has been included in the set, making appearances during Give Me Ed (dropped to make room for Dance of Death material during Death on the Road), and Legacy of the Beast. It took almost two decades for The Clansman to return to the live set between these tours.

With Brave New World tour, Maiden actually expanded the number of songs from BNW in the setlist during the tour. By the end of the tour, they were playing 8 songs from that album, even closing the set with Fallen Angel and Out of the Silent Planet. The title track Brave New World was part of the set during Death on the Road, and by 2010, the album completely dominated the setlist with The Wicker Man, Ghost of the Navigator, Blood Brothers, and Brave New World included. In 2011, The Wicker Man and Blood Brothers remained staples, and Brave New World's status as the best post-80s Maiden album was solidified. By the time of the Book of Souls tour, Blood Brothers had earned its place as a modern Iron Maiden classic, consistently appearing as the second encore song. Both The Wicker Man and Blood Brothers also made their way into the Legacy of the Beast setlist, though at different stages of the tour.

To even compare Virtual XI to Brave New World is absurd. Maiden had to drop Virtual XI songs of their 1998 tour. Three years later, they headlined the Monsters of Rock Argentina with 8 Brave New World songs. The fact that Maiden later included 4 songs from BNW in the setlist a decade after the release, during the promotion of another album, speaks volumes about the band's confidence in that material.

 

[TheTalisman]

They wouldn't get booed of the stage, as most of the audience would probably just believe they are performing songs from the latest release, or from an upcoming album. 90 % of the audience haven't heard a single track from Virtual XI.

 

[07-SMS:A1L]

You should help Maiden with their setlist strategy then! I'm sure "as long as we don't get booed of the stage we can play anything" will go down great in the Maiden board room.

 

[TheTalisman]

I went to see Maiden dressed in a Blaze t-shirt in 2022, with no reactions at all. If it had been in 1999, some people had booed me, or perhaps even wanted to fight with me. It's so long ago now, that most people going to a show are not aware of that they had another singer. They are just happy if Maiden plays the top 10 tracks on Apple Music or Spotify. But other than that, they don't care if it's Senjutsu or Virtual XI, as they can't tell the difference. Many people were not aware of the Somewhere in Time songs in 2023 either, apart from Wasted Years.

 

[07-SMS:A1L]

They are just happy if Maiden plays the top 10 tracks on Apple Music or Spotify. But other than that, they don't care if it's Senjutsu or Virtual XI, as they can't tell the difference.

I really disagree with that. I think Iron Maiden fans are sophisticated and discerning when it comes to the setlist. Not many bands can challenge their fans like Maiden does with each new album. A Matter of Life and Death was played in its entirety, and The Book of Souls took up a significant portion of the setlist during that tour. They even included 8 songs from Brave New World on that album's promotional tour. The first night of any Maiden tour is a huge online event, and the anticipation leading up to the setlist reveal often becomes the subject of entire podcasts. Wasn’t it Bruce who said the Legacy of the Beast setlist reveal would break the internet? You don’t see that level of devotion and excitement for many other bands. Metallica tends to play the same setlist every tour, and Judas Priest usually plays it safe. Maiden really keeps their fans on their toes.

 

[TheTalisman]

It's just a small group of the audience that have such devotion as you describe, and it's the same for any arena rock band. My point is that they could get away with doing 4 Virtual XI songs, as long as the rest of the set are mainly of classics. The name of the tour and the marketing matters as well of course. But on Spotify, it's the Pareto principle that rules. Most listeners have just heard the top tracks, and individual albums don't matter much anymore. This affects the audience at concerts as well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

 

[Vaenyr]

Seems like you are due for a Maiden history lesson. In 1998, Maiden attempted to do a Blaze Bayley-era focused set, but both Don’t Look to the Eyes of a Stranger and Fortunes of War were dropped after just a week of touring. Blood on the World’s Hands and The Aftermath were played once but didn’t survive past the first tour date. Lord of the Flies was dropped 50% of the shows. The Educated Fool was the first to be cut at festival gigs.

None of the things here are new to me, so no need to pat yourself on the back for regurgitating simple, but known, stats.

After the Virtual XI tour, the material from that album was rarely played live. Futureal made it through one tour with Bruce on vocals. Since BNW's release, only The Clansman has been included in the set, making appearances during Give Me Ed (dropped to make room for Dance of Death material during Death on the Road), and Legacy of the Beast. It took almost two decades for The Clansman to return to the live set between these tours.

Different tours that weren't the original album tour that featured at least one VXI song: Ed Huntour, Brave New World Tour, Give Me Ed, both variations of LOTB. That's 5.

Tours that didn't: Dance Of Death (though we got Lord Of The Flies for that one), AMOLAD/A Matter Of The Beast, TFF Leg 2, TBOS.

Additional tours that didn't feature VXI songs but were explicitly marketed as tours around specific eras: Early Days, SBIT, Maiden England, TFF Leg 1 (which was based on reunion-era songs).

So despite your mental gymnastics, putting VXI in the same basket of forgotten as NPFTD is just factually incorrect. The Clansman in particular is beloved thanks to Rock In Rio, to the degree that the song made the LOTB setlist. It's that simple really. Hell, The Clansman had a far better reception than For The Greater Good Of God on most LOTB shows.

Looking purely at the number of tours VXI was represented on more tours than some of the other reunion albums.

With Brave New World tour, Maiden actually expanded the number of songs from BNW in the setlist during the tour. By the end of the tour, they were playing 8 songs from that album, even closing the set with Fallen Angel and Out of the Silent Planet. The title track Brave New World was part of the set during Death on the Road, and by 2010, the album completely dominated the setlist with The Wicker Man, Ghost of the Navigator, Blood Brothers, and Brave New World included.

What a disingenuous way to shift your argument. No, BNW didn't "dominate" the setlist. The entire point of that leg of the tour was to play reunion-era material.

In 2011, The Wicker Man and Blood Brothers remained staples, and Brave New World's status as the best post-80s Maiden album was solidified. By the time of the Book of Souls tour, Blood Brothers had earned its place as a modern Iron Maiden classic, consistently appearing as the second encore song. Both The Wicker Man and Blood Brothers also made their way into the Legacy of the Beast setlist, though at different stages of the tour.

No one is disputing that BNW is beloved. But an album's enjoyment is entirely subjective and trying to base your argument on a couple songs being "staples" (despite missing a bunch of tours, aaaanyway) is fallacious

To even compare Virtual XI to Brave New World is absurd. Maiden had to drop Virtual XI songs of their 1998 tour. Three years later, they headlined the Monsters of Rock Argentina with 8 Brave New World songs. The fact that Maiden later included 4 songs from BNW in the setlist a decade after the release, during the promotion of another album, speaks volumes about the band's confidence in that material.

Here's where you're factually wrong again and where your bias influences your argument too much, having it fall apart. Again, the 2010 tour was explicitly based on reunion material due to following the SBIT tour. The actual TFF set included "only" two BNW songs.

But notice how we're suddenly discussing a different point than the original? Almost as if the goalposts moved? Originally you tried comparing how weird it was for 7 of the 8 VXI being played live (despite one being dropped very early), when BNW had 8 out of 10 (despite two being only played a handful of times). Then when I gave you the explicit numbers for multiple tours and showed you that Maiden is very consistent in playing the majority of their new albums and that VXI is in line with every 80s Dickinson album, now suddenly it's about which album is forgotten and which is legendary.

All in all this just feels like arguing for arguing's sake. Just say that you like one album, dislike the other and be done with it. Don't shift the goalposts because your original point didn't hold up to scrutiny and you're butthurt about it

 

[Vaenyr]

I really disagree with that. I think Iron Maiden fans are sophisticated and discerning when it comes to the setlist. Not many bands can challenge their fans like Maiden does with each new album. A Matter of Life and Death was played in its entirety, and The Book of Souls took up a significant portion of the setlist during that tour. They even included 8 songs from Brave New World on that album's promotional tour. The first night of any Maiden tour is a huge online event, and the anticipation leading up to the setlist reveal often becomes the subject of entire podcasts. Wasn’t it Bruce who said the Legacy of the Beast setlist reveal would break the internet? You don’t see that level of devotion and excitement for many other bands. Metallica tends to play the same setlist every tour, and Judas Priest usually plays it safe. Maiden really keeps their fans on their toes.

That's a pretty naive and idealistic view that doesn't align with reality. A good 80%, if not more, of each Maiden shows is dominated by casual fans who want to hear the singles. That's it.

I love the reunion albums (except TFF), but there is a clear difference in overall audience reaction and participation whenever new songs are played compared to the classics. There's a reason "play classics" is a meme.

Also, saying Maiden "challenge" the audiences compared to other bands seems a bit exaggerated. Yeah, they feature a lot of new songs, but their setlists used to be pretty predictable for the most part. Metallica rotate parts of their setlists. Many bands play it safe, sure; there are plenty that are far more adventurous as well though.

 

[07-SMS:A1L]

A good 80%, if not more, of each Maiden shows is dominated by casual fans who want to hear the singles. That's it.

That's a pretty naive and idealistic view that doesn't align with reality.