Bruce Dickinson

I'm really struggling to find the angle from which some of you are looking at all of this. Is it the case of lowering your expectations so final result might end up better? Or is it the case of forming an negative opinion first-handed so if the consensus ends up being negative, you can go: "Well, I was one of the first ones that said this would suck!" thus possibly enhancing your music-critique level?
I think a lot of it is bitterness. People were complaining that there was no Bruce Dickinson solo album, and now the same people are complaining about 5 second samples, comic books, or whatever else. It's obvious that they can't be pleased. I just don't understand why folks feel the need to join a forum for a band just to shit on that band all the time.
These seem like pretty ridiculous overreactions to people expressing reasonable concerns about what most of Bruce’s back catalog is going to sound like with only a single guitarist live.

We never got a real U.S. tour for The Chemical Wedding. If Bruce graces us with a U.S. solo tour for Mandrake, this will likely be the only time we’ll ever be able to hear those Chemical Wedding songs live and in person. Is it really such bad form to wonder out loud how that’s going to work out, or to be concerned that your one shot at hearing those songs is going to be unnecessarily weakened by that choice?

One could just as easily say they don't understand why folks would feel the need to join a forum for a band just to praise everything that band does all the time.

As I’ve said, I’m willing to keep an open mind about it, but it doesn’t sound promising on its face. I didn’t realize that was enough to give anyone “the vapors”…
 
These seem like pretty ridiculous overreactions to people expressing reasonable concerns about what most of Bruce’s back catalog is going to sound like with only a single guitarist live.

We never got a real U.S. tour for The Chemical Wedding. If Bruce graces us with a U.S. solo tour for Mandrake, this will likely be the only time we’ll ever be able to hear those Chemical Wedding songs live and in person. Is it really such bad form to wonder out loud how that’s going to work out, or to be concerned that your one shot at hearing those songs is going to be unnecessarily weakened by that choice?

One could just as easily say they don't understand why folks would feel the need to join a forum for a band just to praise everything that band does all the time.

As I’ve said, I’m willing to keep an open mind about it, but it doesn’t sound promising on its face. I didn’t realize that was enough to give anyone “the vapors”…
It’s one thing if someone is just discussing reasonable concerns. I think one guitarist sounds iffy on paper but I’m reasonably interested in hearing how it turns out. But then you have people like Ghost who, no offense, every damn post is negative and they repeat all the same talking points he’s already stated. If I have to think back on the positive things he’s said about Maiden’s behavior in the last five years I could probably count it all on one hand. Besides taking his daughter to her first show, which is a super sweet story, he has never spared a moment to complain about SOMETHING. I’m not even going to argue that some of the stuff he says is unjustified (Steve’s potentially terrible vaccine stance, Bruce’s Brexit bullshit are two good examples), and as far as opinions on the material that’s always gonna be subjective, but jeez it seems like anything the band does will just be spun into the negatives if there’s even a sliver of a crack with which to do it.

Again, one thing to bring up issues, concerns, negative feelings, but being negative all the time and repeating the same points all the time has gotten really old around here. I think it would be nice to get some more balance.
 
It’s one thing if someone is just discussing reasonable concerns. I think one guitarist sounds iffy on paper but I’m reasonably interested in hearing how it turns out. But then you have people like Ghost who, no offense, every damn post is negative and they repeat all the same talking points he’s already stated. If I have to think back on the positive things he’s said about Maiden’s behavior in the last five years I could probably count it all on one hand. Besides taking his daughter to her first show, which is a super sweet story, he has never spared a moment to complain about SOMETHING. I’m not even going to argue that some of the stuff he says is unjustified (Steve’s potentially terrible vaccine stance, Bruce’s Brexit bullshit are two good examples), and as far as opinions on the material that’s always gonna be subjective, but jeez it seems like anything the band does will just be spun into the negatives if there’s even a sliver of a crack with which to do it.

Again, one thing to bring up issues, concerns, negative feelings, but being negative all the time and repeating the same points all the time has gotten really old around here. I think it would be nice to get some more balance.
I don't wanna delve too much into this because it is meta-discussion and talking about specific members in particular isn't really on topic, but I feel this is quite the uncharitable interpretation.

I feel Ghost's posts come in three varieties: Positive posts, negative ones, and then the vaaaast majority taking the piss and bantering. A bit as if we were in a pub for example. Yeah, maybe some of the criticisms can feel a bit constant and overly cynical, but it's still valid to hold those views. Maiden isn't perfect and folks can and should be allowed to voice their displeasure.

I don't think "every damn post" is negative. I'm not gonna go through older posts, but I seem to remember positive posts in the tour threads as well. Maybe you notice the negative ones more because you find them annoying? Even in this thread there was the praise for Bruce still releasing singles, while noting that Maiden unfortunately doesn't do that anymore. This could be seen as a negatative comment about Maiden I suppose, but in my eyes that was simply an example to support the point (and it is factually correct either way).

Other than that it's not as if we are in an academic setting discussing overly serious topics all the time. The discussions in the touring threads come in waves with various topics like "should Maiden downtune", "the production of modern Maiden albums", "Janick dances and prances too much/too little/just enough" and so on coming and going like once or twice a year. In between those, especially when we're just waiting and can't talk about active concert footage we're just goofing around with memes and inside jokes.

Also, not sure why it is unjustified to criticize Steve's or Bruce's stances. Guess Steve hasn't said anything publically, but Bruce is not really a person who is shy about his views and ideals. It's not like we broke in his home and read his diary. If my favorite singer can't help himself talking nonsense I think it is valid to criticize that.

This is the only thing I'll say on this matter as this is a bit too meta for my tastes, but I wanted to offer at least some nuance. I don't think we have any (active) members here who are outright haters or trolls. Most of us here love Maiden or have loved them in some way in the past 40 years. I talk shit about the production of TBOSLC or NOTD but no other band in my opinion comes close to touching the highs of Maiden/Maiden at their best. We don't have to love every single decision of theirs or every single product, you know? Except Virtual XI. That one is obviously a masterpiece and anyone who claims otherwise is a deeply unserious person :D
 
I hope Bruce opens his concert with the new/reworked version of If Eternity Should Fail, complete with the smoking cauldron during the intro. That was an incredibly bad-ass opening during the Book of Souls tour.
I hope not. It should be one of the new songs. It was a special show opener for Maiden, but it seems Bruce has changed quite a lot in the song...

Maybe he even removed the intro. The ''plenty more vocal track'' part is curious. More verses, less repeats of the (different?) chorus?
The ''different feel'' part is the heavier approach, I guess.
 
…(Steve’s potentially terrible vaccine stance…
Maybe I'm not up to date, but why do we believe this again? Just because a very questionable person suggested it? But he also suggested that the whole 2022 tour might not take place because of this.
I heard Bruce say a few things :facepalm: himself on his “An evening with” tour.
I also read in a Metal Hammer interview that he stands by his decision, so who wants can call him Bruxit, but Steve?
 
So, album storyline radically changed.. it definitely will be something about oppression of the souls of humans or aliens.
Since IESF will be featured (albeit reworked) on the album, I think the original concept will have its place on it, more or less. The character from the outro will play its role.
At least from Bruce we get a physical single and some videos for us fans, something that’s been missing from Maiden for years.
So true, unfortunately.
Super fascinated by If Eternity Should Fail.
What Bruce presented to the band was probably a work in progress, but Maiden largely followed the original demo version in typical fashion. I'll always defend Steve's inclusion of the intro and outro, it sets a cool vibe and Maiden introducing concepts that aren't tied to anything else is a bit of a signature. Definitely a better way to use a demo than what we got with Satellite 15.

As for the final version, I imagine it's going to be the same skeletal structure but more produced and polished in general.
I'm really excited about the prospect of hearing the demo, the Mandrake version, and getting to see how this song evolved. A rare glimpse behind the curtain!

Somebody unearthed that Dr Strange comic back when TBOS was announced, nice find!
I agree (especially about the intro and the odd outro). It's curious to hear how much Maiden changed the original demo of the song. The new version of the song is even more curious. It's a difficult task to change an already great and memorable song.
I hope it will have a proper solo. What about the ending licks? Will Roy play them. And since it has different lyrics, the chorus should be different, right? The music will probably be slightly changed - the most to be changed I expect to be the instrumental section, which is very Maiden-esque.
 
I agree (especially about the intro and the odd outro). It's curious to hear how much Maiden changed the original demo of the song. The new version of the song is even more curious. It's a difficult task to change an already great and memorable song.
I hope it will have a proper solo. What about the ending licks? Will Roy play them. And since it has different lyrics, the chorus should be different, right? The music will probably be slightly changed - the most to be changed I expect to be the instrumental section, which is very Maiden-esque.
I honestly don't think the new version is going to be incredibly different. Different lyrics, probably (hopefully?) more vocals harmonies. Maybe the instrumental section will change a bit. Particularly the tom lead-in and the bass guitar sound like something Maiden added that wasn't on the original in this form. We'll see in a while though.
 
So, album storyline radically changed.. But now we saw pentagram, it definitely will be something about oppression of the souls of humans or aliens. Draining the life force from poor mortals like it was shown in the Warcraft movie. Those scenes with warlock Gul'dan were friggin powerful and convincing, I must say.
This sounds quite familiar... I wonder why...

Ah, yes. Remove the element of over the top sci-fi and add the element of music discovery and you get:

1700299620677.png
 
Same as Maiden then.

When it comes to the music aspect, yes. It seems that Bruce’s speaking career is/has been managed by other people who ended up going to court!

Apologies for the source:


Edit: to redeem myself for posting a link to that toilet paper, I’ll leave this here:

 
Last edited:
This sounds quite familiar... I wonder why...

Ah, yes. Remove the element of over the top sci-fi and add the element of music discovery and you get:

View attachment 31723
That’s actually
This sounds quite familiar... I wonder why...

Ah, yes. Remove the element of over the top sci-fi and add the element of music discovery and you get:

View attachment 31723
Best Rush album, or maybe tied with Grace Under Pressure. Told a great story. Well done, Neal. Can Bruce’s story match it?

Personally all that dark occult stuff that Bruce likes to explore is kind of boring to me. But we’ll see.
 
Hopefully eternity won't fail in the meantime :D
For some, on the other hand, eternity is nothing but a short while.

Okay, okay, I'm done
Why stop? Don't stop believin Say No, to Self-censorship! Remember our dear old Futureal... We still know what is real :ninja:
As for me, you can exploit Eternity as long as you want to. Don Vaenyr's Crusade against Eternity!
As Dylan Tomas wrote:

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.


Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
 
Other than that it's not as if we are in an academic setting discussing overly serious topics all the time.
You know what? If it's done properly and in a civilized manner, it's one of the things that makes me post more often here. Voicing different opinions in long academic posts about miniscule details of the Maiden world can be incredibly fun. But that's only when there's something to talk about. I don't think there's much to talk about with a 20-second snippet of a song and half-confirmed news about one guitarist. Bruce growls? There are like 4-5 moments on Chemical Wedding where he uses effects to alter his voice. I wonder if he used some of those snippets in '98 before the release of the album, would the people worry that Bruce has gone nu-metal?Second guitarist? If there were (which there still might be, I'm not taking some guy's word as a 100% fact), nobody would be satisfied until it was Adrian. Even then, there would be somebody wishing Janick also because of Tattooed Millionare and soon as you have it, we'd have all six of them on stage playing Wrathchild.

And I think it's completely normal to dislike the snippet and the news. But to me, this looks like people are laying "faulty" groundwork, building their expectations on it, and then later criticizing that the final product looks nothing like the blueprint. Or it all comes crashing down. That pattern is as old as this board is, it keeps on repeating, so that's what made me wonder why do people do that to themselves? We're all eager to hear "something new" and to find out something new about "something new" and, at times, it does spiral out of control. We get lost, and don't see the forest from the tree.

For example, imagine if there were snippets from Senjutsu months before it came out. At the same time, a picture surfaces of Steve Harris reading a Frank Herbert book. "OMFG!!! We're getting Dune pt.2!!!! Did you hear the snippet of the ninth song?!?!? That's a total sequel to To Tame a Land!!!! It's gonna be fucking awesome!!!!" And then you get The Parchment. Which is something I could never predict we would get from post-reunion Maiden (for reference, I think it's somewhere in my Top 10 songs, never bothered to do the list). But then, there would be people, hearing the song and coming to this board to write something appreciative of it only to find comments like "Well, The Parchments sucks, it ain't Dune 2. I feel cheated." One would begin to wonder what the hell happened here and what is wrong with these people. Or for example:

We never got a real U.S. tour for The Chemical Wedding. If Bruce graces us with a U.S. solo tour for Mandrake, this will likely be the only time we’ll ever be able to hear those Chemical Wedding songs live and in person. Is it really such bad form to wonder out loud how that’s going to work out, or to be concerned that your one shot at hearing those songs is going to be unnecessarily weakened by that choice?
@Jer Can you see that, from my point of view, you're setting yourself up for disappointment? I understand that we have different expectations because we have completely different points of view. IIRC you even interviewed Adrian and Bruce for your magazine, which means you saw them on the AoB tour (and if you saw him on Skunkwors tour, I really am jealous). I've never heard any Bruce songs live (except Tears of a Dragon and Jerusalem) so I'm gonna be happy with whatever I'm getting, and you're aiming for The Chemical Wedding. But, no matter how much that album is praised by fans and critics, that album is now 25 years old and I really can't tell how often Bruce (or if he even mentioned it) mentioned it in last 25 years. He's putting out a new album , which he seems really excited about, so I guess some chunk of it will be played live. There is Tyranny of Souls, which hasn't had a single song played live. Add a couple of "hits" from those first four albums, and that leaves 2-3 songs from TCW. And even that is questionable. I'm of the opinion that Bruce is pretty much aware he has come to the point in his career where he doesn't need to play it safe, instead, he could do what he deems "artistic". And even if we get 2-3 songs from TCW, who says that one of those won't be some stripped down, only-piano-and-vocal version of "Gates of Urizen".

That's a pretty small and breakable basket to put your eggs in. And I know you won't come back here saying, "Fuck you Bruce!" after potentially seeing two or three songs from Chemical Wedding in some lounge version, you don't strike me as that kind of guy. But there are those who are tailoring their expectations in a pretty narrow way when there's no guarantee it'll happen that way. It's like: getting your soup in a restaurant and immediately starting to put salt in it. "That's how I like it, that's how I always do it." Later, you can't even eat half a plate because "This shit is too salty, and that fucking chef shouldn't be allowed to wash the dishes, let alone cook!!!" I have no expectations from this album or tour, and that's why I'm really looking forward to it. Blow me away! (like "Dune pt. 2 did).

Also, not sure why it is unjustified to criticize Steve's or Bruce's stances. Guess Steve hasn't said anything publically, but Bruce is not really a person who is shy about his views and ideals. It's not like we broke in his home and read his diary. If my favorite singer can't help himself talking nonsense I think it is valid to criticize that.
It's not unjustified, but it certainly depends on the topic and on "our" understanding of their stances. It doesn't take much for that shit to spiral out of control. For example: Steve's anti-vax. A guy from a guy heard he is anti-vax (mind you, I personally knew one of those guys, and he was always full of bullshit). Steve thanked Novak Đoković in Senjutsu booklet, Novak - who is a famous anti-vaxxer. Steve postponed his British Lion gigs. That was basically it, until a couple of days later, people were saying that the 2022 Maiden tour won't happen. And as we all know, it did and not a single gig was canceled or postponed. Looking back now, those comments about Iron Maiden not being able to tour can be funny, but at the time they did create this certain feeling of unease around the band. Same as those rumors that Dave wanted to retire. Now imagine you trying to cancel your plane tickets and hotel bookings because people "warn" you that the Maiden tour won't happen and later finding out it was bullshit in the first place.

As per Bruce, I don't give a damn about his political views because I don't give a damn about politics. I try to separate art from the artist (although I'm having trouble with it lately), but I also don't see it's fair to take one aspect of his personality/trait and use it to justify (or counter-argument) some other aspect of his personality/trait, especially if those two have nothing in common. And I especially find it distasteful to publicly comment on his professional work with information from his private life. FFS, a guy wrote an autobiography, if he didn't mention it there, he probably wants to keep it private, and I fully respect his decision.

In the end, nobody says you can't talk about all this stuff in any way you want to (again, as long as it's civilized and respectful). Just don't be surprised if somebody has a negative opinion about your negative opinion. And I don't see anybody here as a hater or troller, just as I haven't come across somebody who is praising every single detail. It's more like hearing your friend moan about a certain problem, but you see he's bound to repeat it again and you've had that conversation a dozen times, so you just want to say: Get a grip already! It's fun to speculate, wish, hope and plan about something you're into, but somewhere along the way, too much of that stuff can take a wrong turn and lead you down the one-way street of disappointment.
 
I honestly don't think the new version is going to be incredibly different.
I hope for that, but yeah, it's not that likely.
Bruce growls? There are like 4-5 moments on Chemical Wedding where he uses effects to alter his voice.
But not with such ''heavy'' voice effect. Most likely, this snippet was chosen to be a surprise and will be a short part of the song.
And then you get The Parchment. Which is something I could never predict we would get from post-reunion Maiden (for reference, I think it's somewhere in my Top 10 songs, never bothered to do the list).
Because of the 6 solos? And Steve had written a good number of songs without a proper chorus. Or because they probably surpass their most cinematic Reunion epics with it.
But, no matter how much that album is praised by fans and critics, that album is now 25 years old and I really can't tell how often Bruce (or if he even mentioned it) mentioned it in last 25 years. He's putting out a new album , which he seems really excited about, so I guess some chunk of it will be played live. There is Tyranny of Souls, which hasn't had a single song played live. Add a couple of "hits" from those first four albums, and that leaves 2-3 songs from TCW. I'm of the opinion that Bruce is pretty much aware he has come to the point in his career where he doesn't need to play it safe, instead, he could do what he deems "artistic".
I agree.
Hopefully it will be worth the wait.
I have no doubt. This is Bruce after all.
 
@Jer Can you see that, from my point of view, you're setting yourself up for disappointment?
Not really, unless you think I should be viewing this tour in a contextless bubble.

Let’s say all the Mandrake Project songs were recorded with a single guitar part and keys. (This is unrealistic, because Roy has always layered the guitars in his recordings, even on BTP and TOS where he was the only guitarist, but regardless…) If that’s the creative vision and that’s what he wants to focus on recreating live, fine. But if we get a U.S. leg of the Mandrake tour, this will essentially be the first time (minus a small handful of dates) that he’ll be playing any songs from TCW, TOS, and Mandrake to a U.S. audience, and it’s very likely the last time he will ever mount a large solo tour. So should he be focusing on the Mandrake songs to the exclusion of everything else, or should he be trying to hit the parts of the catalog that have never been serviced in that market before, while also putting a spotlight on the Mandrake material? And if you’re going to do justice to the catalog, how do you accomplish that with a single live guitarist?

Obviously he can do whatever he wants. Priest could have toured with just Richie Faulkner like Rob originally announced (before the backlash got him to walk it back). Were the people expressing concern about a single-guitar Priest live show just setting themselves up for disappointment? Were they off base in those concerns?

I understand that we have different expectations because we have completely different points of view. IIRC you even interviewed Adrian and Bruce for your magazine, which means you saw them on the AoB tour (and if you saw him on Skunkworks tour, I really am jealous).
You are correct about the AOB tour and interview. We didn’t get a real Skunkworks tour in the U.S., just a small handful of opening dates nowhere near me.

I've never heard any Bruce songs live (except Tears of a Dragon and Jerusalem) so I'm gonna be happy with whatever I'm getting, and you're aiming for The Chemical Wedding. […] He's putting out a new album , which he seems really excited about, so I guess some chunk of it will be played live. There is Tyranny of Souls, which hasn't had a single song played live. Add a couple of "hits" from those first four albums, and that leaves 2-3 songs from TCW. And even that is questionable.
I’m not expecting him to play half of TCW or anything close to that, but I would certainly expect 2-3 songs from TCW and TOS and at least 1-2 from AOB. I think it’s fair to expect that at least half the set list would be songs that were recorded with multiple guitar parts (and honestly, I think nearly all of the songs will be ones with multiple guitar parts, given Roy’s history), which makes the single-guitar choice especially weird.

I'm of the opinion that Bruce is pretty much aware he has come to the point in his career where he doesn't need to play it safe, instead, he could do what he deems "artistic". And even if we get 2-3 songs from TCW, who says that one of those won't be some stripped down, only-piano-and-vocal version of "Gates of Urizen".
He can certainly do that if he wants to. Hell, he could tour with just Janick and play exclusively B-sides and I’d still go see it. “Elvis Has Left The Building” could always use a new shitty improvised solo that ends with a bloody elbow and destroyed amps anyway. Would I be disappointed if he made that choice instead of hitting his full solo catalog and doing all of the material justice live? Yes, of course I would.

I have no expectations from this album or tour, and that's why I'm really looking forward to it. Blow me away!
I guess I’m glad that you can approach it in such a doe-eyed way. For me, if I’m about to see my probably last-ever Bruce solo show, I want to see him bring the house down and do justice to his full body of solo work. Will it ruin the experience if he does something else? No, I’ll still enjoy it for what it is. But I’ll be disappointed if he goes out with a whimper when he could have gone out with a bang.
 
Back
Top