Anyone want Derek Riggs back to do the bands artwork?? whats up with dissin him??

It is a great cover, but Riggs' thoughts on the painting are summed up in the painting itself. He painted a banner on the inside of the shop window saying, in reverse, "this is a very boring painting".
Obviously the band did't notice that one!

06time01.jpg

I may be wrong, but I always took that as a sarcastic comment.
 
Eddie was minimized the most on A Matter of Life and Death. Perhaps not only a lack of imagination and technique, but also an offense to Eddie's legacy.
 
Rigg's comments on his site certainly point at a distaste towards maiden... no matter the cause, I cannot see there being any collaboration again.

I've never looked at that corner of SiT before, I didn't even notice the guy holding a brain ^^
 
Rigg's comments on his site certainly point at a distaste towards maiden... no matter the cause, I cannot see there being any collaboration again.

I've never looked at that corner of SiT before, I didn't even notice the guy holding a brain ^^
The guy is Bruce. It's on the back of the original vinyl cover (or the inside of the cd version), along with the rest of the band painted there too.
 
Apparently you guys used Derek Riggs' website too much as it is now ''For sale", no kidding go check!
 
quite interesting story he paints about the band.........how much truth is there to the fact the band treated him so badly?? I still believe to this day that he was a very important part of the band........Eddie was the first thing that drew me to the band..........merchandising has made them a ton of money and Derek did so much..........the newer albums dont have that "punch" that the older stuff did........I know the music is killer, but Eddie has always been a huge part of Maiden to me..........any thoughts??
 
I agree that Riggs was important to Maiden's success in a way at the begining. Back then the artwork was a part of the complete package when it came to buying albums (does anybody remember buying actual albums?) And you can definately tell the difference in the artwork since they stopped working together. However today with CD's and digital downloads I don't believe that the artwork is nearly as important as it used to be.
of course none of it matters if the music sucks. You can put a tuxedo on a pig but it's still a pig.
 
i beg to differ. IMHO i do not believe Maiden would have made half of the impact (especially early on) without Riggs..........you never buy a shirt with a band pic on it or poster, it was always Eddie period (even still today).......and everyone hear should agree with the live shows.......that (especially now) Eddie is a HUGE part of the show........people go nuts at all the back drops and things Eddie does.........none of that would be possible with Riggs.........he was very important, and i do realize he is a very strange man, but that is what made all that artwork so wonderful........great discussion people!
 
Riggs certainly has been important. It's not just the album artwork, also the shows are built around the Eddies.
Maiden is still Maiden when you close your eyes, but as soon as they're open, it's not that difficult to realize how much his artwork has contributed.
 
quite interesting story he paints about the band.........how much truth is there to the fact the band treated him so badly?? I still believe to this day that he was a very important part of the band........Eddie was the first thing that drew me to the band..........merchandising has made them a ton of money and Derek did so much..........the newer albums dont have that "punch" that the older stuff did........I know the music is killer, but Eddie has always been a huge part of Maiden to me..........any thoughts??

I see what you did there...
 
Eddie is a key factor to their success, obviously the music is teriffic, but Eddie is the "brand" for the band. I recall an interview with Bruce saying merch sales really helped the band in the 80s to cover costs and enhace what they could do with the stage show (beyond Eddie being a key for the stage show). Eddie has certainly helped the band a great deal from a financial stand point, they have to be one of the top hard rock/metal in merch sales out there.

Beyond that, he is just cool .. all the single covers, the stages built around him, etc really adds value to an already great band.
 
It seems pretty odd (just an observation, not saying I don't agree in some respects) that you guys feel Maiden's brand/image is so important; almost up there with their music/sound. I genuinely couldn't care less if Maiden had never had Eddie on their covers. I just don't think, fundamentally, he's what makes Maiden. Not saying their imagery isn't really important, but that's more than just Eddie, it's the band members themselves; just humble, ordinary, decent (as far as one can judge) guys, who've never sold out...
 
great music, "used to be" great mascot...........since Derek "flew the coop", Eddie is much more dull and unimaginative...........sorta takes some of the fun out of it............even on the recent tour..........they relied "heavily" on Eddie (the old Eddies), ya know ALL of Derek's work.............IMHO.............[\spoiler]............i miss Derek's dedicated work
 
The music is still the key thing, if Maiden put out poor music, it would not matter. But I think there is no doubt that Eddie was a key factor in their success. Eddie is one of the reasons I gave Maiden a try, I recall seeing the Number of the Beast/Killers/Piece of Mind covers in the record store and other people in school wearing their t-shirts. There was such a glut of rock bands during that period and (at least where I was) minimal radio play for anything heavier than Van Halen ... Eddie stood out from the crowd and I am sure drew some people to give the band a listen/see the shows.

I recall an interview with Bruce saying that the merch sales really helped keep the band moving and enabled them to invest some more money into the stage effects
 
Yeh, but if you'd given them a listen & they'd been shit... they'd have been shit, & you've have stopped listening to them; Eddie, or no Eddie. So Eddie drew you in; Eddie initially caught your attention; Eddie was different --this, to me, doesn't equate to Eddie being anywhere near as important as Maiden's music.
 
No doubt the music THE most important thing, look back at 80s rock/metal, there were certainly plenty of shit bands that had great album covers/videos, but they generally got exposed as such pretty quickly and went away. Conversely, there were plenty of good bands that were not able to break through and went away.

Maiden had the perfect storm of great music and a visual appeal to both bring in fans and give the band a huge revenue stream

I think Eddie is certainly less important now for the band as people know who they are and they are well established, but it was important in the early days to help them break out and be the success they were in the early to mid 80s .. but he is still a a cool mascot and they covers help convey the material on the album and makes for a cool stage show.
 
I think Eddie is certainly less important now for the band as people know who they are and they are well established, but it was important in the early days to help them break out and be the success they were in the early to mid 80s

I think Bearfan has it exactly right. Eddie was extremely important in helping break the band and get them notoriety, especially in the American market. As a young teenager at the time, the fact that Iron Maiden had Eddie on the cover added to the appeal. The music was great, but were it not for Eddie and the Number of the Beast controversy, would many American kids have even heard it? And, at the time, no one became multimillionaires in the music business unless they hit it big in America.
 
Back
Top