Blaze Bayley

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
Blaze is bringing his Maiden set pretty near me, about 60km from where I currently live, so I'm definitely going. I've missed far too many of Blaze's visits here in Finland over the past couple of years, so it's just a too good chance to miss. I wonder how it'll go down to the festival audience though, especially since it's rather small festival and it's not like Blaze-era stuff is that beloved among more casual metal fan, although Blaze seem to have pretty devoted fanbase around here - even if very small. Then again, that's pretty much the story of Blaze Bayley band wherever they go.
 
Last edited:
srfc said:
some delusional comments from Blaze in that blabbermouth piece regarding why he got sacked by Maiden.
Click to expand...

Yup, agreed. I can kind of get the point he's trying to make, since it's not like Steve was immediately "all in" for Bruce's return - Rod did pull a string or two - but Blaze also completely dismisses the fact that things weren't working (on stage, at least) that well for him and they were firing him anyway. Not that mentioning it would be that effective boost for such Anniversary tour anyway...
 
srfc said:
some delusional comments from Blaze in that blabbermouth piece regarding why he got sacked by Maiden.
Click to expand...

Not the first time he’s made them and probably not the last time either. He made some pretty delusional comments when interviewed by Rock Candy magazine about his time in Maiden.
 
It's a difficult subject to speak about with a random interviewer. But he knows why he was dismissed.

68.jpg


69.jpg

From this book:
http://lpdrums.net/the-engine-room/?page_id=64
https://www.amazon.co.uk/At-End-Day...8&sr=8-1&keywords=at+the+end+of+the+day+blaze

It maybe would have been more fair by Rod and Steve to tell him before the South America shows that they were going to change singer, then he could go out like Bruce in 1993 and thank the fans, for his years with the band etc. Now everyone else were aware except the Scapegoat.
 
Last edited:
This is similar to what went down when Di'Anno was sacked in late 1981, I'm sure.
So the similar approach of mainly Smallwood and Harris is interesting - a
onus probandi in their way of dealing with the "lost" singer.

It's also nice to read Blaze's appreciation of the Di'Anno style which it sounds like he felt he could work with - sadly Harris did not listen.
 
Just saw blaze live in my local pub tonight, and I have to say he was absolutely fantastic - possibly the 2nd best live vocalist ive ever seen (after Bruce obviously!) I take back all the snide comments I've made, the bloke has genuine talent. Now I can see what Steve saw in him, I just cant understand why he didnt use him better?
 
GhostofCain said:
Blaze’s? Definitely.
Click to expand...
And Steve's. And Rod's. The rest of the band - to a lesser extent, due to their limited creative control at that time.

Point is, Bruce (I think) is basically a tenor, and had spent years carefully and deliberately stretching his voice to enable him to get those high notes. Blaze, a baritone, being left with this very highly-pitched back catalogue to work with, was simply thrown in at the deep end. Hence his studio recordings are outstanding but when they went on the road and he started trying to sing Bruce-pitch songs night after night he struggled, and ended up with serious voice problems (he was lucky not to ruin his voice completely, forever). Bruce now claims he foresaw it and Janick eventually worked it out, but unfortunately by then it was too late.

What did they expect would happen? It looks rather like they hadn't really thought it through at all. If they had taken measures to accommodate Blaze's lower range (ie transposed the songs down a bit) could they have got a better performance from him? Based on the studio recordings and what we are seeing - and hearing - now, clearly yes. But they appear not to have realised this at the time - it simply "hadn't worked out" and they needed to do something drastic to get themselves back where they wanted to be.

To be honest, I'm starting to think Blaze was wasted on Maiden.
 
Black Abyss Babe said:
And Steve's. And Rod's. The rest of the band - to a lesser extent, due to their limited creative control at that time.

Point is, Bruce (I think) is basically a tenor, and had spent years carefully and deliberately stretching his voice to enable him to get those high notes. Blaze, a baritone, being left with this very highly-pitched back catalogue to work with, was simply thrown in at the deep end. Hence his studio recordings are outstanding but when they went on the road and he started trying to sing Bruce-pitch songs night after night he struggled, and ended up with serious voice problems (he was lucky not to ruin his voice completely, forever). Bruce now claims he foresaw it and Janick eventually worked it out, but unfortunately by then it was too late.

What did they expect would happen? It looks rather like they hadn't really thought it through at all. If they had taken measures to accommodate Blaze's lower range (ie transposed the songs down a bit) could they have got a better performance from him? Based on the studio recordings and what we are seeing - and hearing - now, clearly yes. But they appear not to have realised this at the time - it simply "hadn't worked out" and they needed to do something drastic to get themselves back where they wanted to be.

To be honest, I'm starting to think Blaze was wasted on Maiden.
Click to expand...

Although Blaze's demise is, to a certain extent, Steve's fault (what was he thinking to choose him when it was pretty clear that he would struggle to make the classics any justice live?), his studio work with Maiden is far from stellar, being off key in places and quite flat a lot of the time. You can also blame Steve's (lack of) production skills for this, but at the end of the day Blaze was not the right man for the job, neither in studio, nor (especially) live.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top