Bruce Dickinson a better singer in 1986 or 2016?

CriedWhenBrucieLeft

Meme Only Account
Judas only stated his opinion in regards to Bruce's voice. I don't think he said anything about the rest of the band's performance.
Bruce single-handedly f*cks up LAD for me (one of the reasons I've never been that crazy about that album). His live performance improves with each decade. To be specific, it seems to me in the 80's he had a lot of potential, but he didn't know how to put it to good use. When his range decreased and singing became tougher for him, he learnt to really sing and make it seem as if he's really trying. IMHO, as usual.
You're in danger of confusing your own opinion with objective fact here, Foro.
LAD is great.
Opinion.
Widely regarded as one of the genre's best live albums.
As defined by who? By music critics? In the 80's?
A wonderful collection of songs...
A fairly narrow selection viewing this from 2016.
...and performances...
Bruce's performance is "wonderful"?
...with absolutely perfect sound.
Opinion.
Bruce's strained voice on the Death on the Road live album kills it more to be honest.
Did someone say DotR was superior?

Are you sure you aren't conflating the historical importance of the release (in, say, the 80's) with the actual performance of Bruce?
 

Perun

After the war?
Staff member
I largely agree with your post, Cried, but I feel the need to remark on two points:

As defined by who? By music critics? In the 80's?

LAD indeed is generally hailed to be one of the best heavy metal live albums from the 80's to this day. Most music critics and casual Maiden fans would agree here. You find it on a lot of top lists on this topic, while all other live albums by Maiden are usually absent. You can't quantify this sort of data, it's more the personal experience. I don't think it's their best live album, but I'm a Maiden die-hard. I think Foro was applying a more general view here. Whether it's a valid argument against Judas' opinion is a different question.

A fairly narrow selection viewing this from 2016.

By the standard of 1985 it wasn't, and that's the only standard we should apply here. Of course it's fair to prefer Rock in Rio because it has Brave New World on it, or En Vivo! for Coming Home for instance, but it's unfair to consider the list of songs a flaw from a 2016 perspective.
 

CriedWhenBrucieLeft

Meme Only Account
LAD indeed is generally hailed to be one of the best heavy metal live albums from the 80's to this day. Most music critics and casual Maiden fans would agree here.
This is my exact point; "one of the best heavy metal live albums from the 80's" is quite a narrow, caveat-filled definition. How does is stack up in comparison to other live albums, period? This is 2016; I feel we should be moving beyond the "critics rate this..." label & be far more critical of this analysis & conclusion if it's still being made today.
By the standard of 1985 it wasn't, and that's the only standard we should apply here.
Should we? I'm just saying, it's hardly representative of Maiden now. And I'm pretty sure Judas is forming his opinion having taken a far wider view of the albums merits in the context of Maiden in 2016. The topic is, after all, comparing Bruce's voice then & now.
Of course it's fair to prefer Rock in Rio because it has Brave New World on it, or En Vivo! for Coming Home for instance, but it's unfair to consider the list of songs a flaw from a 2016 perspective.
I don't consider the lack of inclusion of songs that didn't exist in the 80's a flaw. I'm simply pointing out that the selection is only "wonderful", to me, if I were standing in the 80's discussing this. I don't consider the selection wonderful now.
 

Perun

After the war?
Staff member
This is 2016; I feel we should be moving beyond the "critics rate this..." label & be far more critical of this analysis & conclusion if it's still being made today.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that LAD isn't rated highly by fans and critics to this day. As I said - whether that is a valid argument to make in this context is a different question. But it doesn't change the truth of the statement in and by itself. If you want to address the validity of the argument in this context, questioning its truth isn't the right way to go about it, IMHO.

Should we? I'm just saying, it's hardly representative of Maiden now. And I'm pretty sure Judas is forming his opinion having taken a far wider view of the albums merits in the context of Maiden in 2016. The topic is, after all, comparing Bruce's voice then & now.

That is indeed the topic of the thread, but the discussion has diverted from it. If the topic is someone saying they dislike LAD because of Bruce's performance on it, the selection of songs as it compares to our view today is irrelevant. And that's how I took yours and Foro's statement. I admit that "wonderful collection of songs" could just be a poetic way of describing the album as a whole, but I'm not going to interpret Foro's words if he can speak for himself.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing here whether LAD is or is not a bad album, I'm pointing out the logical flaws in your argumentation, which I think is a fair thing to do if you're doing the same to Foro. :p
 

CriedWhenBrucieLeft

Meme Only Account
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that LAD isn't rated highly by fans and critics to this day. As I said - whether that is a valid argument to make in this context is a different question. But it doesn't change the truth of the statement in and by itself. If you want to address the validity of the argument in this context, questioning its truth isn't the right way to go about it, IMHO.
I think it's pretty obvious what point I'm making. I'm stating this to be at best an irrelivant piece of information; and at worst, pure nonsense. Besides, Foro brought it up, not me. I'm saying: what of it? It's just a soundbite to me.
That is indeed the topic of the thread, but the discussion has diverted from it.
Yip, but I'm trying to discuss this in context. Foro appears to be criticising a perfectly valid opinion with illogical argument...

Judas: I don't like LaD because Bruce's singing isn't that good.
Foro: IT'S HIGHLY RATED BY CRITICS AND CASUAL FANS!
Uh.
If the topic is someone saying they dislike LAD because of Bruce's performance on it...
That's... exactly what Judas said & what we're discussing.
...the selection of songs as it compares to our view today is irrelevant.
Again, Foro brought it up. I'm just putting the point in context. We're not in the 80's.
I admit that "wonderful collection of songs" could just be a poetic way of describing the album as a whole, but I'm not going to interpret Foro's words if he can speak for himself.
Where is that rascal?!
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing here whether LAD is or is not a bad album, I'm pointing out the logical flaws in your argumentation, which I think is a fair thing to do if you're doing the same to Foro. :p
Flaws? Pff. Just to be clear, the fact that it's my day off isn't the reason I'm continuing this discussion...
 

Forostar

Ancient Mariner
You're not even listening to this album? Here follows my opinion: you're ignoring a lot of good stuff.

Thanks Perun you pointed out that the album is still widely regarded as one of the most highly acclaimed live albums. That's not for nothing. The singing is good enough to give this album its high rating by both fans and critics. A handful of you may have your own opinion but you may also question your own intolerance for Bruce's voice. He is one of five guys. The album has a lot of instrumental time. And is he THAT terrible to disregard the album? I think, here another opinion, that this is a disproportional thing to do if you value that era and its exciting live performances that belong with it.
 
Last edited:

Mosh

Powerslave
Staff member
But would the album still be as highly regarded if it wasn't the only live album released in the 80s (not counting Maiden England, which came later)? I reckon for many fans this was their first taste of live Maiden. Lets face it, any Maiden live recording is going to be exciting if you haven't experienced it yourself yet.

We have so many live albums now I think it's perfectly justified to ignore one (or more) of them based solely on the vocal performance. Especially in the case of LAD, we have Flight 666 which has most of the same songs and better performances from Bruce.
 

Forostar

Ancient Mariner
I bet that LAD is still widely regarded as highly regarded. How ever cool and good sounding Flight 666 was, and however a great alternative it presents (esp. Rime is great as well), it does not overrule LAD. Bruce might be perceived as better, I wouldn't let that criterium make the whole album better.
 

MrKnickerbocker

clap hands
You're not even listening to this album? Here follows my opinion: you're ignoring a lot of good stuff.

Thanks Perun you pointed out that the album is still widely regarded as one of the most highly acclaimed live albums. That's not for nothing. The singing is good enough to give this album its high rating by both fans and critics. A handful of you may have your own opinion but you may also question your own intolerance for Bruce's voice. He is one of five guys. The album has a lot of instrumental time. And is he THAT terrible to disregard the album? I think, here another opinion, that this is a disproportional thing to do if you value that era and its exciting live performances that belong with it.

I have listened to it, many hundreds of times. However, since discovering their other live albums, I find that I never, ever choose to listen to a LAD version when I have so many more to choose from that have better (as I perceive it) performances. I have stated this over and over again on the forum: if the vocals aren't up to par, I do not care how good the instrumental sections. Sorry, my primary musical enjoyment comes from vocals. I love instrumental music, but if you put a bad vocal over it: I no longer like it.

Do I perceive Bruce's LAD performance to be "THAT terrible" in the grand scheme of things - no. But it's certainly his worst overall performance on a professionally released live album. Thus, why would I listen to that as a first option when there are better options available?

LAD is a case of it being a historic record with tons of energy at the height of the band's early career. It is seen as a great record because of historical importance, emotional attachment (I'm willing to bet most diehard Maiden fans were in their late adolscence-early 20's when it came out), the grandeur of the production, and, yes, the energy the band is pumping out. Bruce is flaming with gusto throughout the whole thing, as is the rest of the band, but his voice is tired. I simply do not care if something is "widely regarded as one of the most highly acclaimed live albums" if a different album has better sound.

I understand that LAD is unparalleled in terms of importance, but it is surpassed in quality by most other Maiden live recordings because of Bruce's performance.
 

CriedWhenBrucieLeft

Meme Only Account
Thanks Perun you pointed out that the album is still widely regarded as one of the most highly acclaimed live albums. That's not for nothing.
Why do you keep parroting this out? People & critics like it; therefore they must be right. Where's your critical judgement man? "Most highly acclaimed live albums", what ever? In Metal only? Maybe you guys could supply some evidence for this claim. Blabbermouth maybe? :p
The singing is good enough to give this album its high rating by both fans and critics.
"Good enough", your words. That would be not very good then?
A handful of you may have your own opinion but you may also question your own intolerance for Bruce's voice.
Talk about following the flock. We're only saying Bruce doesn't sound that shit hot.
He is one of five guys. The album has a lot of instrumental time. And is he THAT terrible to disregard the album?
Straw man argument. Who said they disregarded it?
I think, here another opinion, that this is a disproportional thing to do if you value that era and its exciting live performances that belong with it.
So not very objective then.

LAD is a case of it being a historic record with tons of energy at the height of the band's early career. It is seen as a great record because of historical importance, emotional attachment (I'm willing to bet most diehard Maiden fans were in their late adolscence-early 20's when it came out), the grandeur of the production, and, yes, the energy the band is pumping out. Bruce is flaming with gusto throughout the whole thing, as is the rest of the band, but his voice is tired. I simply do not care if something is "widely regarded as one of the most highly acclaimed live albums" if a different album has better sound.

I understand that LAD is unparalleled in terms of importance, but it is surpassed in quality by most other Maiden live recordings because of Bruce's performance.
Exactly.
 

Forostar

Ancient Mariner
Knick, this is probably painful to do but maybe you know by heart: Do you have a top 10 or 5 of Bad Bruce moments on LAD? I want to know what I think about these moments.

Sorry Cried, but this way of arguing is tiring and it doesn't get us anywhere. If you TRULY don't understand how or disagree with the way I look at it, point it out. If you don't believe that LAD is so acclaimed, I can't help it. If you don't believe me, I can't help it. I am not going to show how great Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is. It just is to most, if they like fantasy literature. That's LAD to a metal audience. Just look it up yourself. If you care. Because, and damned if you do, I think you do not care. Command your dog and bark yourself.
 
Last edited:

Forostar

Ancient Mariner
Foro, you have to admit that Bruce's singing on LAD isn't good. It's just the truth. The reason LAD is considered Maiden's ultimate live album is due to the fact that it's the one from the 'classic' period. I can see how it can be viewed as a milestone (a 'classic') from that perspective, but as Mosh said, in musical terms Hammersmith is vastly superior.
Well, I am not inclined to agree, especially not with your last seven words. I'm not eager to say why. At this moment, I'm full of not very objective opinions, narrow, caveat-filled definitions and straw man arguments. Also, I'm saying things others haven't said! Whoa, that's unheard of, isn't it?
 

CriedWhenBrucieLeft

Meme Only Account
Well, I am not inclined to agree, especially not with your last seven words. I'm not eager to say why. At this moment, I'm full of not very objective opinions, narrow, caveat-filled definitions and straw man arguments. Also, I'm saying things others haven't said! Whoa, that's unheard of, isn't it?
I'm saying apply the same level of scrutiny to this that you apply to everything else (on this forum); you don't appear to be. I'm not denying that "music critics & casual fans" think this is the bees-knees; I'm saying, do you think this is an informed opinion? I do not. I think this was rightly praised at the time and for a time afterwords. I now think people & critics name-drop it without having reassessed their opinion of its merits; in light of later live releases, by Maiden and other bands, and 30 years of further Maiden discography history. If you still hold this in high regard, then fine, state this. Don't use this "widely regarded" argument as if it carries weight though. I'm interested in your opinion, not some nameless uninformed think-Run-to-the-Hills-equals-Maiden wider public.

This is all besides the point anyway. The main point is, as plenty of others have pointed out, that Bruce wasn't on top form. If he was in better form elsewhere, and the band likewise were, then that recording should be held up as the live Maiden album. LaD should not be put on this pedestal you're trying to put it on.
 
Last edited:

Mosh

Powerslave
Staff member
If we're going to rate things based on what is highly regarded, then NOTB is the peak of Maiden and everything they've done in the past 25 years is irrelevant.
 
Top