I don't know... Not that he sings bad or anything close (to be fair I'd rather have this version of him than anything post 2008, which perfectly rational). But his performance sounds disengaged. He doesn't hit those notes with the power and conviction he did one or two years prior. Don't get me wrong: it sounds nice yet a bit sloppy for his standards, that's all.
For me he sounds like balls to picasso
Mmmm... he sounds fine in Maiden England (although there's something that's holding his massive output to come even nearly what he is capable of, resulting in some songs sounding a bit strained) and to a lesser degree he sounded a bit off during the various gigs from that tour I listened to. Which once again is strange to say the least: I think Bruce sounds way better performing many of those tunes during the following tour. But I think LAD is Bruce on another level. Ah! Not to mention RIR 1985! Bruce is on fire, and it's a broadcast! What that guy does on the second chorus of Aces High is jaw dropping!
This! One thing is noticing stuff now that he's older and his voice somewhat eroded (which, once again, is perfectly normal), yet not compromising what I consider to be his former prime the majority of times. Another thing is saying anything Bruce did up to roughly 2010 sounds "strained" or "bad". There are levels and yes, one can be a bit nitpicking on this or that era, and that's fine. But I simply can't comprehend how people find huge dips on quality standard during those nearly 30 years (perhaps the Somewhere on Tour decrease - which I think is his least achieved 80's live era - was the most noticeable, but even so there are still many songs he really nailed during 1986 to 1987).
