Bruce Dickinson a better singer in 1986 or 2016?
- Thread starter onemanmambo
- Start date
soundwave
Educated Fool
The funny thing to me is that we nitpick Bruce's 80s performances quite a bit on this forum, and while I agree there is a bit of a drop off in the mid 80s with his vocals, he is still light years ahead of so many other guys on stage (even when he's having a bad night). I was on a forum for Megadeth and everybody seemed to be happy that Mustaine was generally in key on the last tour. I'd take 86 Dickinson over 99% of rock/metal vocalists.
GhostofCain
Ancient Mariner
So would I, but then Bruce is definitely one of the best hard rock singers of all time (and one of the more distinctive).
Belshazzar
Yer Mum Can't Come
I think his peak was 88-2008, those 20 years right there.
But he's SO much better now than in the early days, live.
I mean look at the Live at Donington RTTH performance, it's terrible.
Also, it's worth remembering that the Album LAD and video LAD are two separate beasts!
But he's SO much better now than in the early days, live.
I mean look at the Live at Donington RTTH performance, it's terrible.
Also, it's worth remembering that the Album LAD and video LAD are two separate beasts!
D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
^ the situation is not so clear cut for me. If you're talking about the fierce discussion about LAD from 5 years ago in this thread.
Live After Death in the context of its time is unsurpassed.
But that context is heavy metal of early 1980s - this is the type of music that wasn't known for it's virtuosity, melodies or composition skills or musicianship, Iron Maiden being the biggest exception around, but an exception. From that standpoint of heavy metal just being a 'better played punk' in the sense that energy and vibe is everything while the correct musical performance is either missing or secondary, LAD is godlike, because Bruce actually manages to sing somewhat correctly and his bad performance just contrasts the overdubbing tendencies of the day.
Tied to that, favouring Beast over Hammersmith due to 'good vocal performance' is moot. Dickinson may be strained and out of breath on LAD but on Hammersmith he's full of air and belting out notes out of tune, which for me are ear piecing moments. The second chorus of Prisoner is particularly painful.
So if you can take imperfect performances as historical document of a young band and heavy metal in its earlier, rawer and more mistake prone phases, both of these should be grand live records but LAD is a high profile one where the stakes are much, much higher and it feels so.
But, Maiden became bigger than that, soon after. By Seventh Son the compositions and performance and stakes were on the level enough that Maiden set one foot in progressive world which is rather known for perfection in sound. Out of tune vocals or out of tune guitars, bends, simply were not allowed anymore. Smith made a couple of minuscule mistakes on Donington and he was completely bummed about it.
Forostar said that on DOTR Dickinson is strained. He might be, also like on last Rock in Rio, but he never hits a wrong note. Unlike in the 1980s.
I can't accept the opinion that LAD is their best live album, just like that, because it documents a era in the band long gone, while we're praising them because they evolve musically, both as a group and individual wise.
Basically yesterday IM released a new album to much of our hype, and I have to accept the so called "fact" that some 35 year old live thing is unsurpassed in the overall discography, partly because of the setlist, meaning nothing they've done since is actually worth playing over those selection? Now that's a fucked up opinion.
Live After Death in the context of its time is unsurpassed.
But that context is heavy metal of early 1980s - this is the type of music that wasn't known for it's virtuosity, melodies or composition skills or musicianship, Iron Maiden being the biggest exception around, but an exception. From that standpoint of heavy metal just being a 'better played punk' in the sense that energy and vibe is everything while the correct musical performance is either missing or secondary, LAD is godlike, because Bruce actually manages to sing somewhat correctly and his bad performance just contrasts the overdubbing tendencies of the day.
Tied to that, favouring Beast over Hammersmith due to 'good vocal performance' is moot. Dickinson may be strained and out of breath on LAD but on Hammersmith he's full of air and belting out notes out of tune, which for me are ear piecing moments. The second chorus of Prisoner is particularly painful.
So if you can take imperfect performances as historical document of a young band and heavy metal in its earlier, rawer and more mistake prone phases, both of these should be grand live records but LAD is a high profile one where the stakes are much, much higher and it feels so.
But, Maiden became bigger than that, soon after. By Seventh Son the compositions and performance and stakes were on the level enough that Maiden set one foot in progressive world which is rather known for perfection in sound. Out of tune vocals or out of tune guitars, bends, simply were not allowed anymore. Smith made a couple of minuscule mistakes on Donington and he was completely bummed about it.
Forostar said that on DOTR Dickinson is strained. He might be, also like on last Rock in Rio, but he never hits a wrong note. Unlike in the 1980s.
I can't accept the opinion that LAD is their best live album, just like that, because it documents a era in the band long gone, while we're praising them because they evolve musically, both as a group and individual wise.
Basically yesterday IM released a new album to much of our hype, and I have to accept the so called "fact" that some 35 year old live thing is unsurpassed in the overall discography, partly because of the setlist, meaning nothing they've done since is actually worth playing over those selection? Now that's a fucked up opinion.
GhostofCain
Ancient Mariner
By reading this thread what comes to my mind is a bible's well known passage namely Luke 23:34... and I'll leave it at that.
I have always preferred Smith/Dickinson 23:58, but each to their own.
D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
^ care to counter argument something?
Aces High 1999 is way better than Aces High 1984/85, for instance. In every possible aspect. Meanwhile what happened? Well a guy learned how to maintain his voice and consistency throughout the set and another guy perfected ("learnt properly" in his own words) heavy metal rhythm guitar and a drummer replaced his cardboard set with something that actually sounds like a drum and three more people just had 15 years to get better at what they do. Still being young and full of energy in 1999.
So why listen to LAD? Because it has a great version of Rime? OK that's an argument. Because it has great performance of the songs? Somewhat, debatable, there are better performances. Because it captures IM in the heyday of metal 80s which they were spearheading up to that point? That's the only valid argument.
I never said LAD isn't their greatest live album but I can certainly live with the opinion that someone cherishes Rock in Rio more, or anything else.
But I'm tempted to say that people who prefer live Bruce in early 80s haven't got their hearing straight. There's a reason why he was dubbed the air raid siren, he was fucking up modulation all the time while having a badly controlled vibrato with way too much belting power. He goes nasal frequently. Birch gave him shit time in studio because he couldn't deliver in a lower amount of takes.
Aces High 1999 is way better than Aces High 1984/85, for instance. In every possible aspect. Meanwhile what happened? Well a guy learned how to maintain his voice and consistency throughout the set and another guy perfected ("learnt properly" in his own words) heavy metal rhythm guitar and a drummer replaced his cardboard set with something that actually sounds like a drum and three more people just had 15 years to get better at what they do. Still being young and full of energy in 1999.
So why listen to LAD? Because it has a great version of Rime? OK that's an argument. Because it has great performance of the songs? Somewhat, debatable, there are better performances. Because it captures IM in the heyday of metal 80s which they were spearheading up to that point? That's the only valid argument.
I never said LAD isn't their greatest live album but I can certainly live with the opinion that someone cherishes Rock in Rio more, or anything else.
But I'm tempted to say that people who prefer live Bruce in early 80s haven't got their hearing straight. There's a reason why he was dubbed the air raid siren, he was fucking up modulation all the time while having a badly controlled vibrato with way too much belting power. He goes nasal frequently. Birch gave him shit time in studio because he couldn't deliver in a lower amount of takes.
karljant
Ancient Mariner
Dude... I can live surrounded with people that say Maiden is crap and One Direction is fine arts. I couldn't give less of a shit about it.
Do I think they're absolutely wrong? Hell yeah! But they're 100% entitled to their opinions no matter how idiotic I think they are. The same works for your opinion, anyone's opinion on this forum or the roughly remaining 7 billion people on this planet. If I like something then I like it... if I don't like it then I don't like it, period. If either people share my vision or not... hey...more power to them.
Of course I always tend to be a bit caustic sometimes (in a comical manner) regarding some opinions but nonetheless I don't want to evangelize no one (curiously enough even when I pick passages from the bible, it's just me trolling a bit). But nobody has to agree with me nor do I want it.
So that being said, man... believe in what you believe: I could care less. But when it comes to my opinions or anyone else's YES YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THEM. You may strongly disagree with it or even think they're 100% delusional like I do regarding many of the stuff you wrote but it's other people's take. Neither you nor I (nor anyone) owns other people's taste when it comes to art. Deal with it.
Do I think they're absolutely wrong? Hell yeah! But they're 100% entitled to their opinions no matter how idiotic I think they are. The same works for your opinion, anyone's opinion on this forum or the roughly remaining 7 billion people on this planet. If I like something then I like it... if I don't like it then I don't like it, period. If either people share my vision or not... hey...more power to them.
Of course I always tend to be a bit caustic sometimes (in a comical manner) regarding some opinions but nonetheless I don't want to evangelize no one (curiously enough even when I pick passages from the bible, it's just me trolling a bit). But nobody has to agree with me nor do I want it.
So that being said, man... believe in what you believe: I could care less. But when it comes to my opinions or anyone else's YES YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THEM. You may strongly disagree with it or even think they're 100% delusional like I do regarding many of the stuff you wrote but it's other people's take. Neither you nor I (nor anyone) owns other people's taste when it comes to art. Deal with it.
Last edited:
GhostofCain
Ancient Mariner
karljant
Ancient Mariner
"Old fans overrate Thriller... the clip it's too long, the choreography is also overpraised, Michael's high pitch shouts aren't still on point, neither does his crotch zipper move. Not to mention his moonwalk. Black or White is far superior... he is older and wiser and has finally fully mastered his high pitch, his moves... and the special effects are top notch. Only nostalgia can make people say Thriller is Michael's best song and blah blah blah..."
What exactly is going on here?
karljant
Ancient Mariner
Now seriously... it started as the thread says by basically people saying that Bruce sounded better in 2016 than in some dates in the 80's, me disagreeing by going a bit troll mode by quoting the famous "Forgive them Father" bible passage to suggest I think they're out of their mind (but never intended to change anyone's opinion... I simply don't care) and then another user giving lectures on why x is better than y and that he cannot accept other people's opinion to which I responded that no matter how wrong or moronic you think other people's opinions are of course you have to accept it. You don't have to agree with it but fact is other people are entitled to it. PERIOD!
I think it pretty much sums it all.
D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
I fully agree with that, I only disagree about "LAD is best because it's LAD" opinions. It's as debatable as "best studio record".
The other topic is the Dickinson's voice progression.
I'm under the impression that most people favour mid-90s to mid-00's period. And also that if you're out for early Bruce's great performance you should be listening to Dortmund or London 1983.
karljant
Ancient Mariner
Hey... as I said before... people are entitled to opinions and justifications that I consider totally WTF takes (even ones i consider dumb like the one yoy mentioned: LAD is better because it's just LAD). Is it dumb? IMO it is... but it's their take on things ... leave 'em be. My favorite live album is indeed LAD and is especially because of Bruce's performance many people here slander but I consider to be jaw dropping and the absolute zenith of his form in an official live album. Production wise I also consider it to be superb and the band is working like a swiss clock. Don't agree with me? Fine, You don't have to and I seriously don't care.
The most popular era could even be when he was at Samson. I don't care. In my book from 1981 (first gigs in Italy) to 1985 (LAD and RIR 1) that dude is just on another level when it comes to live recordings. If you don't agree with this, cool... More power to you.
There's lots of recordings besides that (and regarding the World Piece Tour I would even pick their gig in Ipswich). Also think the dude slays it in Beast Over Hammersmith. But once again, in my book, nothing like his performance in LAD (especially the vinyl version). And that's all that matters for me... hey if people prefer his voice live in 1979, 2000, 2007 or 2016 or 1993 or whatever good for them! I don't and it's not even close. And once again I don't want to change people's opinions. But no one even dare to constrict mine.
Last edited:
Spaldy
Ancient Mariner
I'm curious as to what you mean by this.
To my knowledge Bruce's somewhat strained voice on LAD doesn't improve on vinyl. I should know as I have the vinyl and the CD.
D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
The vocals are indeed very good, but they are a studio overdub.
Another fact : there are re-dos by Smith also, they say guitar was out of tune.