Posting a new meme everyday 'til Iron Maiden releases new studio album

srfc said:
Also, a lot of the time unreaction is not a case of someone thinking "I don't know this therefore I refuse to runamok" but can, and for me it certainly is, be a case of "I don't know this but it sounds good and I'm going to pay attention to it"
Click to expand...

That's true I guess. But from what I remember it being like at the actual show, it was more a case of the crowd being disengaged from the show towards the end of the AMOLAD set as opposed the being actively listening/attentive in the set, at least that is what the crowd reaction at the end of the songs told me :D
 
Last edited:
Well for me, who wanted to hear all the new tracks, I felt the element of surprise was lost and that was the biggest factor in disengagement*. I had avoided spoilers but you realised from about The Pilgrim what was happening, therefore for the next hour or so you knew what track was coming next.

* for me in any disengagement, not that I was disengaged much.
 
Last edited:
srfc said:
Well for me, who wanted to hear all the new tracks, I felt the element of surprise was lost and that was the biggest factor in disengagement. I had avoided spoilers but you realised from about The Pilgrim what was happening, therefore for the next hour or so you knew what track was coming next.
Click to expand...

They could have pleased everyone throwing a few classics into the AMOLAD set but i'm still glad they didn't :D
 
I've always been curious about why the element of surprise is such an important factor. I witnessed only two Maiden gigs in which I had no knowledge of the set list beforehand and while it was cool in 2010, looking back, I can't say these really stick out in my concert memories. I sometimes think the spoiler paranoia exists for it's own sake and not because spoilers really take away from the experience.
 
Perun said:
I've always been curious about why the element of surprise is such an important factor. I witnessed only two Maiden gigs in which I had no knowledge of the set list beforehand and while it was cool in 2010, looking back, I can't say these really stick out in my concert memories. I sometimes think the spoiler paranoia exists for it's own sake and not because spoilers really take away from the experience.
Click to expand...

I just remember the look on my mates face when they busted out Lord of the Flies in 2003. Not that it's a particularly great track or anything, but you would never have guessed it in a million years. Maiden don't throw curve balls too often so when they do I'd like to get that split second of amazement.
 
I've gone in cold to a couple Maiden gigs and it has always been fun. But trying to avoid seeing the setlist before a gig at all costs just isn't realistic. I'm goling to have a good time either way.

I'll take what Perun said a step further even and say I don't really care about spoilers in movies either. I was spoiled for the last episode of Mandalorian a few weeks ago before I saw the episode, but it didn't make the ending scene any less awesome. If a spoiler ruins something for you, that thing probably wasn't very good to begin with.
 
Also it helps when your date is close to beginning of the tour.
 
Would love to get the first gig of a tour for that reason, and also to see the rare track that gets replaced after the first gig for Wrathchild.

Nearly did it on the AMOLAD tour had a ticket for Aalborg but then they announced the US leg which ended up being first.
 
Yeah that wasn't meant as a joke, although it is funny, but is a genuine legitimate deadly serious reason for wanting to go the the first gig of the tour.
 
^ yeah the songs they've dropped through the years, Stranger in a strange land, Paschendale, 1000 Suns...

The worst thing about Paschendale live is that the error was nowhere near catastrophic. It was even charming, letting vocals finish "tell the tale of Paschendale" on their own. Troublesome counting, I don't know where it went wrong, possibly sound monitoring issue, but the fact is that with visual beat machine cues McBrain would've known where he's at without even hearing the rest of the band. So if they really wanted to play those songs, they would make it happen. I just feel like the band themselves like some classic more than deep cuts. Dropping any AMOLAD song for the other was out of the question because they felt material is too consistent but that doesn't mean they rate it as high as Wrathchild.
 
On AMOLAD tour
Of course it didn’t hurt Maiden, also their SBIT ’08 was (looking from business aspect) awesome move. It was weird listening to him because, I believed him. It wasn’t like he was disappointed, it more felt like he was “cheated”. New songs always need some time for audience to accept them, but there is a big difference if a band has 3 albums or 15 albums to choose their setlist from (considering Beast over Hammersmith). I believe a lot of them had good time, but we are all looking this from a fan perspective. Imagine having a tickets to a band you know but you’re not that into. Example, The Rolling Stones: Jumping Jack Flash, Brown Sugar, Satisfaction, Start Me Up, Tumbling Dice and Sympathy For The Devil. Imagine hearing only 3 out of those 7 and opening a gig with a new album that you’ve heard maybe couple of times, only because you’re going to the gig. That’s how it felt for him. It doesn’t mean gigs were bad or the crowd was uninterested or something similar. I would’ve love the show if I had seen in in ’06 but I also get this point of view. I remember, first words after seeing Maiden for the first time live were: “MORE!” His were probably “Nyah, okey…” Then again, his favorite band was G’n’R so maybe I should’ve started with that...


On AMOLAD
Exactly was @srfc said. I believe for a lot of people who place AMOLAD high in their rankings, a fact that it’s been played whole live certainly plays a role. A lot of songs would maybe be looked more fondly upon if they found their way in the setlist and the fact Maiden have that one-setlist-per-whole-tour-deal doesn’t help it. There is a whole bunch of songs which weren’t played live which have the label “if it was any good, it would be played.” And I don’t think it’s a thing would it or wouldn’t it sound good live. For example, The Legacy is my favorite track on AMOLAD but no matter how much clips I saw, it just doesn’t work that well live. This being said, I also applaud their decision to play whole AMOLAD live, especially that late in career (and for this first time!). Also if we’re talking about later albums who would I like to see live in its eternity (and I think they would work much better) I’d nominate BNW and TFF.


On spoilers
Knowing or not knowing the setlist doesn’t have a big impact on me. Actually, 3 times I’ve gone “blind” (because it was the start of the tour) and TBH one of those was my worst Maiden gig due to some other factors. On the other hand, I knew the setlist for LOTB ’18 but had such a good time that I forgot it during the gig. I think 2 or 3 times I was genuinely surprised like “Oh yeah, they’re playing this too!” And since we’re on this topic. Two and a half years passed since LOTB started, next year gigs don’t look so possible: Do we still need to user spoilers?


On Paschendale
I don’t get this one. There were a couple of videos from those two nights and I don’t understand what’s going on. To me, it looked on purpose. What are the chances of all 5 of them failing and Bruce being only on time? Maybe they decided to change it a bit and then didn’t like how it sounded? They were playing that one on whole ’03 tour and there were that many hiccups, I mean not that I know of. Oh, and Wrathchild didn’t kill Paschendale back in ’10, Paschendale was trading places with Dance of Death and Wrathchild was there from the start. And now:



Day 33
What is going on with this board? It is 2021?

4t6ayf.jpg
 
Spambot said:
Of course it didn’t hurt Maiden, also their SBIT ’08 was (looking from business aspect) awesome move. It was weird listening to him because, I believed him. It wasn’t like he was disappointed, it more felt like he was “cheated”. New songs always need some time for audience to accept them, but there is a big difference if a band has 3 albums or 15 albums to choose their setlist from (considering Beast over Hammersmith). I believe a lot of them had good time, but we are all looking this from a fan perspective. Imagine having a tickets to a band you know but you’re not that into. Example, The Rolling Stones: Jumping Jack Flash, Brown Sugar, Satisfaction, Start Me Up, Tumbling Dice and Sympathy For The Devil. Imagine hearing only 3 out of those 7 and opening a gig with a new album that you’ve heard maybe couple of times, only because you’re going to the gig. That’s how it felt for him. It doesn’t mean gigs were bad or the crowd was uninterested or something similar. I would’ve love the show if I had seen in in ’06 but I also get this point of view. I remember, first words after seeing Maiden for the first time live were: “MORE!” His were probably “Nyah, okey…” Then again, his favorite band was G’n’R so maybe I should’ve started with that...
Click to expand...

I understand that point, but Maiden were really doing the most to please both groups of fans at the time. They started alternating between greatest hits tours and album tours with emphasis on new material in 1999. Anyone pissed at AMOLAD didn't consider they had been doing greatest hits tours in 1999, 2003 and 2005 and Bruce was literally announcing the next greatest hits tour onstage during the AMOLAD tour. Honestly: It's ridiculous standards to hold Maiden by. I got extremely pissed at the Play Classics! fans at the time because they were ignoring that Maiden did tours only playing classics as often and as much as they played new material. If you felt cheated during the AMOLAD tour, then you should have asked yourself if you were really paying attention to what the band was doing and what standards you held them by.

Spambot said:
Exactly was @srfc said. I believe for a lot of people who place AMOLAD high in their rankings, a fact that it’s been played whole live certainly plays a role. A lot of songs would maybe be looked more fondly upon if they found their way in the setlist and the fact Maiden have that one-setlist-per-whole-tour-deal doesn’t help it. There is a whole bunch of songs which weren’t played live which have the label “if it was any good, it would be played.” And I don’t think it’s a thing would it or wouldn’t it sound good live. For example, The Legacy is my favorite track on AMOLAD but no matter how much clips I saw, it just doesn’t work that well live. This being said, I also applaud their decision to play whole AMOLAD live, especially that late in career (and for this first time!). Also if we’re talking about later albums who would I like to see live in its eternity (and I think they would work much better) I’d nominate BNW and TFF.
Click to expand...

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I was absolutely blown away by AMOLAD when I first heard it and it dominated my playlist for the rest of the year and beyond. I don't know why exactly but it really spoke to me at the time when it was released, and I still hold it in very high regards. I can't tell you if my long-term appreciation was influenced by them playing the entire album because I can't look into an alternative universe where they didn't do that; but I was really pleased that they did back then. Firstly because I really loved the album, and secondly because it was a really bold move to do so for many reasons. People may have forgotten by now that this was a time when many major metal acts were playing their top classic albums live in their entirety - Dio did so with Holy Diver, Metallica did with Master of Puppets, Slayer with Reign in Blood, Megadeth with Rust in Peace. It was a fad and Maiden responded by playing not their classic album but their new album in its entirety, which was a very powerful statement. It was a great way to find balance between doing history tours and making a statement that they still see their new music as important.

Spambot said:
Knowing or not knowing the setlist doesn’t have a big impact on me. Actually, 3 times I’ve gone “blind” (because it was the start of the tour) and TBH one of those was my worst Maiden gig due to some other factors. On the other hand, I knew the setlist for LOTB ’18 but had such a good time that I forgot it during the gig. I think 2 or 3 times I was genuinely surprised like “Oh yeah, they’re playing this too!” And since we’re on this topic. Two and a half years passed since LOTB started, next year gigs don’t look so possible: Do we still need to user spoilers?
Click to expand...

Well, it was just an inquiry for personal interest. I won't go around telling everybody that Bruce Willis was a ghost all along because I think spoiler fear is silly and as I hope you trust, this has no effect on employing moderation policies towards spoilers on this board. I've just personally found that looking back, there are only very few occasions in entertainment media that I can identify where not knowing a spoiler really enhanced my experience. And frankly, I've never heard anyone giving me a compelling argument that it did for them. What @srfc said in this thread is actually the closest thing I ever got, and I'm not sure if closing your eyes and putting fingers in your ears for months just for a split-second moment is worth it. But during discussions, most of the time the very notion of questioning if spoilers are a bad thing is rejected with almost compulsive aggression. It's really a toxic argument.

Spambot said:
I don’t get this one. There were a couple of videos from those two nights and I don’t understand what’s going on. To me, it looked on purpose. What are the chances of all 5 of them failing and Bruce being only on time? Maybe they decided to change it a bit and then didn’t like how it sounded? They were playing that one on whole ’03 tour and there were that many hiccups, I mean not that I know of. Oh, and Wrathchild didn’t kill Paschendale back in ’10, Paschendale was trading places with Dance of Death and Wrathchild was there from the start.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it alternated with Brighter Than a Thousand Suns? I think the reason they dropped both songs is because they found that rotating the setlist with long and complex songs such as these two just doesn't work and they couldn't give the standard of performance they felt they should have. It was a crying shame and I would have preferred them keeping at least one of the two instead of replacing it with fucking Wrathchild, but honestly, the setlist was fine the way I eventually got it. I never thought I'd get to hear Ghost of the Navigator or No More Lies, two of my favourite songs, so honestly, who was I to complain?
 
@Perun Yep, I think a lot of people at that point thought they already know "the Maiden live formula" which made it only more suprising.
And you were right, Wrathchild and 1000 Suns swapped, as so did Dance of Death and Paschendale. I don't remember people moaning about 1000 Suns since it was played just 3 years before that, but Paschendale seemed like a big deal. But alas, the setlist really was awesome. It was first time hearing any of the BNW or DOD songs live. And being in first row as Adrian opened the show with the The Wicker Man riff is one of my favourite Maiden moments.

Day 34
Also, I've been to Germany a couple of times, but I can't wait to visit Gerwomany one day.

4t12v8.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yax
Spambot said:
Day 35
Have I done this right?

View attachment 13551
Click to expand...

Fine, I'll play along.

dYkhxto.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top