Bruce's Singing

AncientMariner_Essex said:
lol, utter garbage. I’m all for people expressing their own opinions and usually I don’t care if someone’s opinion is different to mine but this statement is preposterous.

So Bruce only sang well for 1.5 years in the whole of his time with Maiden in the 80’s. :oops::facepalm:
Click to expand...
The post you quoted literally stated "the rest of the 80s were passable but not amazing by any means". Considering that his voice was shot after the World Slavery Tour and he considered quitting the band, and that this continued into the 90s it's a perfectly valid stance to have. As in, he started out great, fucked up his voice and took literal years to recover.

"utter garbage", some of y'all really need to chill out lol
 
Vaenyr said:
The post you quoted literally stated "the rest of the 80s were passable but not amazing by any means". Considering that his voice was shot after the World Slavery Tour and he considered quitting the band, and that this continued into the 90s it's a perfectly valid stance to have. As in, he started out great, fucked up his voice and took literal years to recover.

"utter garbage", some of y'all really need to chill out lol
Click to expand...
He was more than passable in the 80’s and his voice to my ears was fine after the world slavery tour.

I hear fans online always talk about how shot his voice was from 1985 and through the 90’s. And to me that’s just a load of bollocks. Bruce sings superbly on Seventh son and it was hearing that album that made me a maiden fan.

He sounded great on maiden England, sounded great on FOTD and sounded great on live at Donington, to my ears anyway.

Think I’m gonna swerve this forum for a while as theirs way too much negativity and bollocks being talked that conflicts with my views so rather than argue I’ll just go.
 
The "to your ears" is the important point. Other people have other standards. You are free to like whatever you like, but others are free to dislike whatever they want, for a variety of reasons. That doesn't make their opinions a "load of bollocks", they simple hear things differently and disagree with you. It's not so deep. ^^
 
AncientMariner_Essex said:
...

Think I’m gonna swerve this forum for a while as theirs way too much negativity and bollocks being talked that conflicts with my views so rather than argue I’ll just go.
Click to expand...
I think we should post our opinions honestly without having to worry that they might be too negative.

Also, I don't see why we can't say both, some have the opinion that they simply enjoyed Bruce's singing. But sometimes it's also objectively true that he doesn't sing in tune.
 
GhostofCain said:
I will be brutally honest here: I am really concerned about Bruce's signing.


















































Mid 80s. Look at the attention to detail:

View attachment 39923

2017. Notice the lack of attention to detail:

View attachment 39925
Click to expand...
His most recent signing reveals more technical and is objectively more consistent. 2000 was the most incredible Bruce signing session. I think he had calligraphy lessons back then. :D
 
Melony said:
Are we sure that's what he means (given that Bruce has recently become the master of ambiguous statements that spark rumors). I'm just puzzled, because I would make such an appeal to my bandmates personally, but I wouldn't publish it.

View attachment 34645

Bruce writing his name with great concentration. :D
Click to expand...

We have to recognise the huge effort he makes to deliver the best results for us when signing!:D
 
karljant said:
His most recent signing reveals more technical and is objectively more consistent. 2000 was the most incredible Bruce signing session. I think he had calligraphy lessons back then. :D
Click to expand...

You have to wonder why he is writing stuff with a pen and ink, are Maiden too cheap to use Microsoft Word and printers like all the modern bands?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top