Blaze Bayley

[Deleted member 7164]

I disagree.

Well you're a bit wrong there. Decline in numbers starts in 1986.
As far as USA general audience is concerned, Maiden peaked in 1985 with World Slavery Tour.

Seventh Son would be one weird album if it didn't have the concept and the soundscape. It is both heavier and catchier than stuff before it, but not at the same time, in the same song. It is only the concept that ties these things together.

In 1986 Master of Puppets, Peace Sells, and Reign in Blood were released, creating a permanent rift, a clash of styles in USA. By 1988 these bands were even more heavier and their adversaries were even more sleazy, on the peak of their hair/glam debauchery.

If you wanted, if you needed to fit Maiden in either of these two boxes, it wouldn't fit 100%. That was the problem between US media and Maiden.

Seventh Son did not make anything tectonic in that scenario, it did not merge any genres, it did not amount to anything "media important". It was a great Maiden record and it influenced a sub-genre of music called progressive metal which is irrelevant to popular music or mainstream media. It also had impact on the death metal scene. None of that is important for the narrative that record industry was creating.

The next album I see as Harris doing some time off from everything, this turmoil, Smith leaving, worlds changing, response was a low key no-frills album, a low key live production and a large domestic tour.

Although there were some attempts to capture new American fans by consciously releasing hard rockers and ballads as FOTD singles and videos, it was visible that FOTD can make less impact than Seventh Son. In this period Maiden moves to book large shows in South America. Also the divided Europe is gone, which makes it easier and more profitable to play in eastern countries.

Nothing is accidental here. And we wouldn't be talking about anything if Maiden just decided to bypass USA in TXF and VXI tours.

I think people get these things wrong, but Maiden won't brag about them because Blaze's live performance wasn't really up to standard. They intentionally went there just to blast 110% metal to those fuckwit audience. The few hundred true fans up front were a bonus. In the mid to late 90s USA, Iron Maiden got cancelled. They went there and kicked ass anyway.

 

[Black Abyss Babe]

Blaze was put in an impossible position where he didn't have a hope in hell of ever winning but he still gave it his all and did his best to make it work. Thank God everyone got to where they should be in the end and no-one fell out over it (and that mainly due to Blaze's forbearance and dignity). But I'm still left with a certain wistful sense of what might have been if Steve had known how to make proper use of Blaze's considerable talents. When I say that the main importance of Bruce's return was that he brought Adrian with him, I'm only half joking ...

 

[Forostar]

And I don’t think we give enough credit to the bad production on those 90s albums. Say what you will about modern Maiden production, but they sound pretty industry standard for a legacy act like Maiden. The 90s albums sound very amateurish. Especially compared to some of the state of the art recordings that were being made during the 90s. Some of the best sounding rock albums of all time were made then. Meanwhile Maiden was pumping out productions that would’ve been considered garbage even 30 years ago.

Recently I played Fear of the Dark, and I realized how wonderful I find its production. It has depth, maybe some more bottom end(?), nice bassy sound without being dominant over higher stuff. Around the excellent produced rhythm section we have the very nice rest. With all the details captured, the acoustic guitars, the keys, the rhythm guitars. All in great balance. On top of that, Dave sounds absolutely the best of his whole career. Yes that is his talent, but how well his wizardry was recorded, mixed and produced... that was important as well. Thanks to Martin Birch's last work.

No Prayer was more rough, live sounding. The X-Factor may have a less produced drum sound, I can't quite put it to words what is less about the album's sound, perhaps the sound of the rhythm guitars (the melody lines and solos sound fine to me). I can say the album does not sound that "full", but was never that bothered about it. Accident of Birth had very fat sounding guitars, but as a consequence way less audible bass guitar. In the nineties, Maiden still had a prominent bass guitar. If you want to hear it well, something else is going to suffer. So I do not see how Maiden could have done much better. The single Virus had strong sounding guitars, perhaps some people would like that better than TXF?

Virtual XI is not that full sounding either, nor is the playing (Nicko is drumming very "modest"). It was reviewed as having a demo sound, compared with Helloween's Better Than Raw. But do I hear the cracking sounds from a demo? I don't really hear it. Instead I hear a warm sound. I'm hearing very fine frequencies. The rhythm guitars may sound a little processed(?) but I love how they roar.

What was one of the best sounding rock albums of the nineties, and can we imagine Maiden having sounded like that?

 

[Mosh]

What was one of the best sounding rock albums of the nineties, and can we imagine Maiden having sounded like that?

We could take that question in a lot of different directions that would probably also involve a discussion on Maiden’s musical direction during that time. But how about Accident of Birth?

 

[Travis The Dragon]

As far as nu metal and the classic metal revival of the 80s go, it’s definitely true that those sorts of things (along with Ozzfest) really helped rejuvenate old school Metal in America, it took Maiden at least a decade to get back to where they are now. Speaking from personal experience, I was a kid when nu metal was everything, Maiden really weren’t cool around my age group until I got into High School. Even among nu metal fans, Maiden weren’t even seen as a metal band but just an “old hard rock” band.

I also wonder what would have happened if radio played Maiden heavily in the 90's and 2000's. We'll never know. At least things did improve.

 

[Deleted member 7164]

Accident of Birth had very fat sounding guitars, but as a consequence way less audible bass guitar. In the nineties, Maiden still had a prominent bass guitar.

But how about Accident of Birth?

Case is very clear, Maiden went for the AoB thing in two albums time. I think there were only two loose requirements for Dickinson/Smith to rejoin, one was a new album, and the other was "a proper producer". The guitar sound in BNW is absolutely gargantuan compared to anything from the 90s. The only thing comparable to it, from the 1990s, well it's the 1999 live sound.

Although Harris was still highly prominent in live sound, from 2000- on records the guitars are regularly overpowering his frequencies, and he is not "high in the mix" as far as treble is concerned. That piece of sound space is occupied by guitar chug, the very thing lacking in 1990s albums.

Take chorus from Fallen Angel and it could hypothetically be a 3rd Bruce/Z/Smith record. If their 3rd album came out in 2000 and sounded like that, people would feel it's a continuation of powerful, modern, metal production, so nothing out of the ordinary for that band. For me there is no question about the way they Maiden went. They went the way of big guitar sound, and the proof is BNW.

Additional thing not taken into the account is the lack of multitracking, stacked rhythm guitar parts on that Maiden 90s albums. That is good for the dynamic definiton of the instrument. However it's not good if you want a punchy, wall of sound thing, which is what modern metal guitar sound tends to be. Roy Z multitracked everything including vocals at time. The intro riff for Trumpets is 4 stacked guitars just in his channel.

Maiden partially resolved this by having 3 guitarists. When "unmastered" they sound good because they have benefits of stacked guitars while still having three unique guitar tracks with their own sound and definition. But for things such as BNW, there were doubled guitar parts all over the place.

 

[Diesel 11]

Would be interesting to know what Maiden would be like had Roy Z stepped in as a producer. I feel like this never happening has left a bit of a bitter taste in his mouth all these years later... yet at the same time I think he'd have quit immediately - or been fired - were he working with Steve, who's a control freak for all the wrong reasons in the studio.

 

[Mosh]

I’m glad they didn’t get Roy Z, and I agree with Zare that BNW was a clear step in that direction. But they did it with a more Maidenish sound, a producer who was a better fit, and a compromise between Steve’s preferences for a live sound and Bruce’s wishes for a good production.

 

[TheTalisman]

, nor is the playing (Nicko is drumming very "modest").

Steve's drumming.


Nicko was playing golf.

 

[srfc]

Steve’s preferences for a live sound and Bruce’s wishes for a good production.

I've never read anything that there is any dispute between either of them over the live sound, which was Shirley's idea.

 

[Forostar]

Can't say I particularly enjoy later Maiden productions (way) more than the nineties productions, especially the best of the nineties. I guess I like 'Arry's bass to have some space, just like on most earlier 1980s albums. But you know, I deeply fell in love with Maiden in 1991, am used to that kind of sound in Maiden. Lack of multitracking? Excellent. Less wall of sound? Fine! I dig that in prog rock and jazz albums of past decades, which I'm getting into more and more, and I'm valueing individual contributions over wall of sound these days. I absolutely like AOB as well. But it doesn't have much room for bass guitar. Different band. I love how it sounds but rather would not like Harris to be in such a mix.

I need to study BNW a bit to hear how it exactly sounds (guitars), perhaps it is a good balance for a three guitarist band. But for two guitarists I really can't see how FOTD is sounding bad (nor most other nineties works). Grab some headphones if you like, and dive (back) to the days of detail, dynamics, clearness and well... strength as well to be honest.

 

[Yax]

What I dislike about FoTD is the snare. It's just the wrong bloody snare drum, with a little too much of the snares. It's too loud compared to the rest of the drum set, especially considering just how low in level the kick is. The snare and tom reverb consists of too much treble. They did remove the annoying 2khz bump of the snare sound n the remaster, thank H, that reallly, really got to me. Otherwise, I think it's a fine, live sounding, rocking early 90's sound. I'd probably love it with a different sounding snare drum and slightly louder kick with a slightly different spectral quality.

 

[srfc]

I just think, the same as with the X Factor (but not as bad), that the guitars are too wimpy.

 

[Forostar]

What I dislike about FoTD is the snare. It's just the wrong bloody snare drum, tuned a bit too high, with a little too much of the snares. It's too loud compared to the rest of the drum set, especially considering just how low in level the kick is. The snare and tom reverb consists of too much treble. They did remove the annoying 2khz bump of the snare sound n the remaster, thank H, that reallly, really got to me. Otherwise, I think it's a fine, live sounding, rocking early 90's sound. I'd probably love it with a different sounding snare drum and slightly louder kick with a slightly different spectral quality.

I do not really recognize that. Not on my CD at least. I think they used a lower, deeper sounding snare on purpose (tuned looser! ; Janick spoke about it a 1992 interview, I could look it up), but maybe you especially mean it sits too loud in the mix for your taste.

If you're not into huge (and imo waaay too dominant) sounding snare and also toms, you may not like the current live mixer. I thought the dude mixes Nicko way too loud especially these drums (not per se the cymbals). Almost hurt, such highly vibrant hits, and he overpowered the rest, especially guitars.

 

[Yax]

I do not really recognize that. Not on my CD at least. I think they used a lower, deeper sounding snare on purpose (tuned looser! ; Janick spoke about it a 1992 interview, I could look it up), but maybe you especially mean it sits too loud in the mix for your taste.

If you're not into huge (and imo waaay too dominant) sounding snare and also toms, you may not like the current live mixer. I thought the dude mixes Nicko way too loud especially these drums (not per se the cymbals). Almost hurt, such highly vibrant hits, and he overpowered the rest, especially guitars.

I edited my post, thanks, and removed that bit. I'm just going to let this post account for that. What I was originally talking about was the overtones of the snares (not sure about the terminology, the snare band under the drum). The drum itself is, as you say, fairly low in pitch, but the overtones are not. The band might be too tight, too loose or whatever in conjunction with just too much of treble on the channel and too much of the bottom mic. I just think the entire sound of it is off and pretty distracting - Which is a shame. You can have a dominant drum sound without it being a distraction.

I thought Maiden sounded great live. The dominance worked in that setting. But on the live album? Definitely not, especially not with almost all mid guitars.

 

[Forostar]

Re: FOTD & current live mixer: alright everyone their own taste (or annoyances) of course. Glad I was (hopefully not next time!) not bothered by this minute matter.
Re: live album: I heard exactly that as well in concert. Definitely not a little matter imo. As if Maiden wishes to sound heavy (read: LOUD), just because they want to sound heavy. But gone are the individual touches. Very generic imo.

 

[Kalata]

Recently I played Fear of the Dark, and I realized how wonderful I find its production. It has depth, maybe some more bottom end(?), nice bassy sound without being dominant over higher stuff. Around the excellent produced rhythm section we have the very nice rest. With all the details captured, the acoustic guitars, the keys, the rhythm guitars. All in great balance. On top of that, Dave sounds absolutely the best of his whole career. Yes that is his talent, but how well his wizardry was recorded, mixed and produced... that was important as well. Thanks to Martin Birch's last work.

No Prayer was more rough, live sounding. The X-Factor may have a less produced drum sound, I can't quite put it to words what is less about the album's sound, perhaps the sound of the rhythm guitars (the melody lines and solos sound fine to me). I can say the album does not sound that "full", but was never that bothered about it. Accident of Birth had very fat sounding guitars, but as a consequence way less audible bass guitar. In the nineties, Maiden still had a prominent bass guitar. If you want to hear it well, something else is going to suffer. So I do not see how Maiden could have done much better. The single Virus had strong sounding guitars, perhaps some people would like that better than TXF?

Virtual XI is not that full sounding either, nor is the playing (Nicko is drumming very "modest"). It was reviewed as having a demo sound, compared with Helloween's Better Than Raw. But do I hear the cracking sounds from a demo? I don't really hear it. Instead I hear a warm sound. I'm hearing very fine frequencies. The rhythm guitars may sound a little processed(?) but I love how they roar.

I think the production of FOTD album is great (especially the drum sound). The production of VXI album is also good. NPFTD and TXF albums production is not that good imo, but I think it suits the atmosphere of both albums quite well (same is with VXI and maybe FOTD) - the dry sound in NPFTD (= the stripped down sound of the album), the gloomy tone and riffs in TXF (= the dark vibe of the album), the futuristic sound in VXI (= the theme and atmosphere of the whole album), the big drum sound and strong guitar riffs in FOTD (= the sound of the 90's).

I think I've read an interview with Steve (around the era of FOTD) in which he said that the production of FOTD album is the best they had so far (he also talked about the different drum sound) or something like that...

Btw, I like the production (more or less) of every Maiden album.

What was one of the best sounding rock albums of the nineties?

For me - Painkiller 1990) and Legacy Of Kings (1998)... + Fear Of The Dark (1992).

 

[Deleted member 7164]

I've never read anything that there is any dispute between either of them over the live sound, which was Shirley's idea.

Mosh was talking about the record sound being more "live" or more "produced"

Lack of multitracking? Excellent. Less wall of sound? Fine! I dig that in prog rock and jazz albums of past decades, which I'm getting into more and more, and I'm valueing individual contributions over wall of sound these days.

I have no problems with that either. However I really prefer how that stuff sounded live.

Maiden was full-on live and their guitar play is everything bar well defined. Both guitar players are jumping around and riffing like there's no tomorrow, guitars are very dirty in the best sense of that word.

For TXF/VXI, the production, for me, simply doesn't do justice to the energy of the songs.

I'd like to take a simple guitar part as an example, Janick's Lightning Strikes Twice part in the chorus. It's palm muted chords, just some bass accents. On studio, it is audible that this is played precisely as-is, no harmonics, no overtones, no drone sounds, string noise, anything bar clean studio playing. Live, things get a lot different. The playing is ferocious, the chords are banged out from the elbow, there's noise, harmonics, unclean play, but thats regular rock and roll electric guitar. Live in this conditions it creates a "wally" sound by itself. You can apply this to Murray too, his style and sound are cleaner, but there's still a big relative difference between his output studio and live.

Based on that I believe that multitracking certain parts would make those albums sound closer to the live sound, and it would enrich the soundscape. There's really no reason why there shouldn't be a boost in denseness of guitars once song like Futureal or LST hits the chorus. They do it anyway live, by playing harder naturally.

And yeah Futureal, Murray's riff at the chorus is immense, it could've been a hook of the song and a hook of the entire album.

 

[srfc]

Mosh was talking about the record sound being more "live" or more "produced"

As am I.

This myth that the record sound being "live" is down to big bad Steve, and that Bruce want's it more polished, is just a myth that has grown up from internet fans projecting what they imagine they are being deprived off as being what Bruce and Adrian must also secretly want and what they hate being down to Steve or Rod.

 

[Deleted member 7164]

Smith left because Harris didn't want big production, and wanted to tone down from Seventh Son. Smith has said, multiple times over the course of last 20 years, that Maiden is under-produced. He does not mention that as a bad thing, more of a unique thing, but regardless of the context that particular phrase is not ambiguous.

I don't know what fans think, here's what I think. Dickinson wants the same as Harris, the live sound, he just wants someone that can see it through. As I've explained above, I think that Maiden in the 90s post Birch wanted the same thing as contemporary Maiden - the capture of live sound in the studio. There are interviews of the era attesting to that. But it wasn't done right*. Dickinson also does not seem like a guy that wants to hang in studio for weeks making harmonies and 100 takes and stuff like that. However Smith still has some reservations about the production process as seen in TFF documentary.

*people need to understand that majority of fans back then consumed music on small stereos and walkmans and shit like that. TXF might sound grand and dynamic if you blast it on a big sound system. I can't recall for it, but for VXI that I constantly listened off tape on shitty 90s headphones, it sounded like a demo compared to Seventh Son or Somewhere in Time. My school bag had more tapes in it than notebooks, and I really do remember those first impressions. VXI took a lot of listening investment. It sounded dull, edgeless and monotone compared to late 80s.