.

Dave_Murray_rules said:
Well put! Technically, there are a million musicians out there who are faster, "better" etc, but like Dave said in an interview once (about his telepathic companionship with H): "You can put the two best guitarists in the whole world in the same band, and it' still not going to work, because you have to have that special chemistry. Adrian and I had (have) that."
Click to expand...

See Adrian Vandenberg and Steve Vai in Whitesnake (1989-1990): best pair on paper but possibly worst (absence of) alchemy live.
 
Travis The Dragon said:
As far as song writing goes, based on how great Bruce's last 3 solo albums are as well as the 2 Bruce written songs on TBOS, the band could actually afford to lose Steve and still be able to come up really strong material. However, that would most likely upset a lot of Maiden's fan base and hurt their popularity. So, the only losses that wouldn't hurt them much would be Janick or Dave and maybe Nicko.
Click to expand...

Strongly disagree in a songwriting aspect. I like Bruce solo material, his material in Maiden is also great, but what for me made post 2000 records great is Harris/Gers duet. Specificly on BOS, If Eternity has a great intro, but outro is completely Bruce solo stuff and I usually skip it (it doesn't do anything for me). Empire of the Clouds is the biggest disapointment since I started listening to Maiden.

If your looking at songwriting aspect Nicko and Dave have less and less contributions. But of course, even if Steve, Bruce, Adrian and/or Janick completely write a song and bring it to studio with a different drummer/guitarist - it would sound completely different because every one of them gives an extra touch to each song that original composer didn't include. Then of course, you would have to consider "emotional" component of recording - replacing a member at this stage (not matter what his previous contribution was) would definitely change chemistry of the whole band. Who knows how the process of recording would go then.

So, even in songwriting and studio aspect, every "replacement" would be definitely noticable. Probably less if those 2 were Nicko and/or Dave, but definitely not Steve. That was what I was trying to say, but wandered off a little. Steve/Bruce/Janick/Adrian are pillars of songwriting IMO, completely irreplacable at this point. On another note, I would mind if they replaced Kevin Shirley, and brought someone more "stronghanded".
 
Mosh said:
No Steve = no Maiden. As much as I love his writing, I have no interest in a maiden album entirely composed by Bruce.
Click to expand...

There just would be no point. Even if the album was played by Nicko, Adrian, Dave, and Janick...it's still not Iron Maiden.

However, I am now envisioning a future in which Steve and Nicko hang it up and Bruce continues to record, write, and tour with Adrian, Dave, and Janick....and I like it. :)
 
Somewhereonline said:
I think Dave would retire from the music industry were Steve to retire/disband Maiden. Otherwise, I could see Bruce, Janick, and Adrian forming a band under another name and continuing successfully with a different rhythm section.
Click to expand...

I would assume they would just do Bruce's solo material under his name. Outside of the name "Iron Maiden", "Bruce Dickinson" has the most widespread recognition. Easier at this stage than coming up with a new band name, I think.
 
Adrian has proven he could just record albums and not promote them on the road. Steve, on the other side, is clearly keen on touring as long as he can. Guys, did you read those interviews where he repetedly said that the idea of his life without Maiden was frightening? Of all the band members, he is the one who loves the stage the most, and everyone who saw him on small stages with BL can testifies he trully loves playing in front of an audience, no matter its importance.
 
Well, Maiden is almost like the said ship, and this since 1979 at least. Only two 5th of the ship are stable, and this is what made it remain itself. The question asked as the title thread has already been answered many times by the facts. This is a real question only to those who think that this line-up is the only "true" Maiden incarnation. As for myself, as far as Harry runs the ship and wants to name it Maiden, this is Maiden, period.
 
At this point in their history, with them at the age they are, I think any member leaving would be the end of the band

As for what member leaving would be the disintegration if Maiden? I think it's obviously Steve Harris. He's the glue that holds the band together. Without his drive and ambition, Iron Maiden isn't even a generic 80s band who lives off their heyday, *cough Poison, Guns N Roses *cough* He is Iron Maiden!

But as for the other 5 members I think if Steve chose to go on without them it would follow through and the fans wouldn't like it of course but it would happen, look at how many people were sacked in the 70s and Steve never lost focus and trucked on. When Bruce left they didn't stop, they kept on like the fighters they are. If this hypothetical situation happened I think they would remain Iron Maiden no matter what

But I doubt if anyone were to leave the band they would continue. Iron maiden has a different band than a lot of rock bands, they genuinely care about each other and love what they do, so a member leaving would he too much for them. They are obviously closer than other bands who are able to replace key members without a thought, like AC/DC
 
Somewhereonline said:
Psuedo-philisophical question that I originally saw applied to Black Sabbath in a book.

In your opinion, how many band members would have to change for Iron Maiden to no longer be Iron Maiden to you?

I'll preface by saying that I hope the lineup never changes again. I think they have the magic formula and right chemistry as musicians as they are today.

I consider Steve Harris to be essential: No 'Arry, it ain't Maiden

Otherwise, I would consider Bruce Dickinson or Adrian Smith demonstrably beneficial, but Maiden has been Maiden in the distant past without either of them. I consider the Bayley era a bust, and a Stratton or Di'Anno reboot would likely fall flat once the novelty wore off. Without a Smith and Dickinson (sounds like a whiskey), however, it'd be a lesser Maiden, but Iron Maiden it'd remain. I consider any two of the current three guitarists key, so an Adrian departure has a cumulative effect if it coincides with another guitarist leaving. Let's call it the "dual axiom" -- see what I did there?

Dave Murray -- longevity (and skill) counts, but, sadly a Dave Murray departure on his own wouldn't be the end of Iron Maiden as we know it; however, dual axiom applies.

Nicko McBrain has said he'd want Maiden to carry on if he were somehow ever unable to play. The late Clive Burr was in my opinion great for the band's early sound; so, a non-Nicko drummer could work. I think a Nicko-less Maiden would be at a huge disadvantage (but still Maiden).

Janick Gers, not to be a stereotypical hater jackass about him but a Janick departure on his own would have little to no effect (go back to a five set); however, since any two guitarists leaving would make a difference, he's a factor if Adrian and/or Dave also left.

So, I posit that for Iron Maiden to remain Iron Maiden and not a band that happens to have rights to the name, they'd require at least Steve Harris and two out of three of the current guitarists in the lineup (factoring in replacement vocalist and/or drummer as circumstances dictate).

Now, what if Adrian or Dave (but not both), Bruce, and Nicko left and formed a band together with another bassist and one more non-Maiden guitarist? They wouldn't have the rights to the name, but how much would they be Iron Maiden?

Feel free to call this a stupid exercise or even sacrilege, but it's meant to be fun. There's always the never boring topic of prognosticating what the setlist will be in 2019 to go back to.

Cheers,
Professor Cartenhorses

p.s. Yes, I'm drinking when I post this stuff
Click to expand...

Interesting question... I kinda of look at Maiden and compare their lineup changes to a band like Journey. Don't get me wrong... I'm not doing a side by side comparison. Iron Maiden has been established a bit longer than Journey. In my opinion, as a fan, I'd like to keep everybody on stage, but if one person would have to leave without making a major change to their sound, it would have to be Janick. Bruce Dickinson is, well, Bruce Dickinson. I've never heard anyone come close to his voice or stage presence. I used to think Journey could never find another Steve Perry, but they have managed to find at least 3! Plus, just like Maiden, Steve Perry wasn't their first singer either, they didn't hit pay dirt until Perry joined. That being said, I think that Janick would be on the expendable list without disrupting the core sound of the band. It's funny, because I know Janick is an mvp in the studio, but just seems to play air guitar while onstage about 80 percent of the time. He does add a fun dynamic to their live show because of his antics. Let's just hope that they continue to stay healthy, keep their voices (can you hear me Paul Stanley?), and keep going as long as they don't make a parody of themselves (do you hear me KISS?). :)
 
I think the only replacement that could possibly work is Michael Kiske replacing Bruce. Any other replacements wouldn't work.
 
Nobody. He did the comeback thing, his fame has grown immensely, he's beaten cancer. I don't think Bruce can be replaced.
 
Yes, I agree that 'spiritually' Dave is hugely important. To me, he is part of the 'face' of Iron Maiden and if he left it wouldn't feel the same anymore.
And if either Steve or Bruce pulled the plug it wouldn't feel like Maiden any more either (obviously).

I know Nicko is hugely loved by Maiden fans, but I consider his place behind the drum kit expendable. But then I guess I never really liked his drumming sound or style either (ducks for cover).
I think Maiden lost a lot when Clive Burr left.
 
Well I can't agree with that. They had different style. But just take Piece Of Mind as the 'next' album. How would Where Eagles Dare, Still Life, To Tame A Land, Flight Of Icarus sound with Clive? They wouldn't. The beats Nicko plays are in perfect synergy with songwriter's basslines, they would never be written or played like this if Clive was still in the band.

I can agree that Clive was better, more raw, more hardhitting when it comes to very narrow domain of music that we call 'classic heavy metal'. But Maiden is much more than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top