Bruce's versions of Di'anno and Bayley era songs

I aint sayin hes better than Bruce, or even close. I just felt like sayin something in support of Blaze, I like the guy and some of the material. And I stand by the point that the production and playing diminish the quality of those 2 albums.
You say Pauls were classic and Blaze's are substandard. So does it follow that you would say Charlotte and Drifter are better than SOTC and Clansman?
Nothing wrong with the former but not a patch on the latter, IMO
 
Ziggyplayedguitar said:
The Paul songs were classics, the Blaze ones were just substandard whoever sang them, let's be honest.
Click to expand...
In your reality, sure.

But if we put it into statistics, and set the amount of plays as a messurement for which tracks are substandard, then we can actually draw some real conclusions. 'Rock in Rio' features two Blaze Bayley era tracks, The Clansman and Sign of the Cross. Recent Spotify statistics shows that out of the 19 tracks, The Clansman and Sign of The Cross are ranked second and third in amount of streams. The most streamed song from the album is Fear of the Dark. So I would be careful of calling these songs substandard ;)
 
These stats must be versions with Bruce. The era is not important. When he sings it people love it.
 
Forostar said:
These stats must be versions with Bruce. The era is not important. When he sings it people love it.
Click to expand...
The point of the discussion was not who sang it, it was if the material itself could hold up to other classics. But point taken, Bruce Dickinson is the best and most important vocalist ever. I couldnt agree more.

And regarding your statement that the era is not important, at the end of the day its music. Its entertainment and in the grand scheme of things none of it is 'important' :)
 
fekso2017 said:
The point of the discussion was not who sang it, it was if the material itself could hold up to other classics.
Click to expand...

All of the eras of Iron Maiden are important, but I don't think the songwriting is equal.

Regardless who sang them, songs like Phantom of the Opera, Sign of the Cross, and The Clansman stand up to any of Iron Maiden's other works. IMO, however, the Dickinson era(s) saw a much higher overall quality of songwriting emerge. Even the songs I like on the first two albums or the Blaze albums don't stand up to the powerhouse songwriting in the classic Dickinson era or the reunion era.
 
MrKnickerbocker said:
All of the eras of Iron Maiden are important, but I don't think the songwriting is equal.
Click to expand...

No, because the Bayley era, DiAnno era, first Dickinson era and second Dickinson era produced very different material. The first Dickinson era saw much commerical focus with songs like Can I Play With Madness and Wasted Years. The second Dickinson era has been very progressive.

I wouldnt say that any era had 'more quality' in their songwriting. I wouldnt say that No Prayer For The Dying or Book of Souls are bad in terms of songwriting, I would say they just dont appeal to me as much as Killers or The X Factor did. Although I plan to have a beer tonight with my new bought vinyl copy of No Prayer for The Dying, because I still enjoy it ;)
 
fekso2017 said:
No, because the Bayley era, DiAnno era, first Dickinson era and second Dickinson era produced very different material. The first Dickinson era saw much commerical focus with songs like Can I Play With Madness and Wasted Years. The second Dickinson era has been very progressive.

I wouldnt say that any era had 'more quality' in their songwriting. I wouldnt say that No Prayer For The Dying or Book of Souls are bad in terms of songwriting, I would say they just dont appeal to me as much as Killers or The X Factor did. Although I plan to have a beer tonight with my new bought vinyl copy of No Prayer for The Dying, because I still enjoy it ;)
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, but I'm not talking about enjoyment level as much as I am technical songwriting ability (sorry, my pedantic Dutch heritage is showing through).

The songs on the early Maiden albums, as much as I enjoy them, all have very pedestrian, repetitive lyrics. Usually about hating/running away from authority figures, rocking out, and killing women. This is to be expected, of course, because the guys were still in their infancy as a band and as songwriters. The storytelling, poetry, and historical approach that took hold during the Dickinson era allowed the songs to have a far greater emotional impact.

Likewise, some of the Bayley songs have some incredible clunkers of lyrics and music. Although I think the Bayley era was very important because it found Steve take on a greater understanding of mirroring the tone of songs with the lyrics. Unfortunately, most of the lyrics were the same (war/depression/etc). When they came back together in the reunion, I think all of the songwriting leveled up because the guys are mature songwriters now (even if that sometimes yields some overlong material).
 
The simple fact of the matter is that Blaze-era songs, which make up roughly 12% of Maiden tracks are properly represented in the top brackets. Of the top 10 Iron Maiden songs (according to Maidenfans.com rankings), 1/10 top 10 songs are from Blaze albums, and 2/20. That's about what you'd expect. 9 of the top 100 though, which curves a little below the grade, but in the top tracks they are well represented.

I suspect that a lot of the grade is affected by "not Bruce"...I bet if somehow those tracks existed with Bruce on them, people would like them better. Some people, after all, cried when Bruce left. I maintain that the Blaze years are integral to the existence of Iron Maiden and that some truly cracking tracks came out of it. In addition, in recent years on Maidenfans there's been a lot more "not Bruce" going on - the absolute rankings give the Blaze years a better performance in the top 100, but the rolling rankings reflect a lower grade for those albums in general.
 
MrKnickerbocker said:
Well, yeah, but I'm not talking about enjoyment level as much as I am technical songwriting ability (sorry, my pedantic Dutch heritage is showing through).
Click to expand...

I think your English is far beyond sufficient ;) Dont worry about that. I agree with you that the early albums had somewhat corny lyrics on them. But dont forget that to a certain extent Number Of The Beast also suffered from it. The only songs on that album that lyricly dont make me cringe are Children of the Damned and Hallowed. But you cant argue with the musical perfection of Run to The Hills, 22 Acacia, NOTB and The Prisoner. I dont know to which extent Bruce was involved with these lyrics but lyricly I do perfer Blood on the Worlds Hands to Invaders, or Virus to Gangland.

The strongest album to me in terms of lyrics is A Matter of Life and Death. I think that this is the point where the reunion line up fired on all cylinders, lyricly. Brave New World was amazing, but not as focused as AMOLAD. I have always enjoyed the lyrics of The X Factor and I find it odd that it took Maiden such time to record a war themed album with Bruce.
 
Last edited:
fekso2017 said:
I agree with you that the early albums had somewhat corny lyrics on them. But dont forget that to a certain extent Number Of The Beast also suffered from it..
Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely. Maiden have never escaped having some corny lyrics on their albums, there's always at least one tune on every record with something incredibly corny in it. However, I think the first couple albums contain a majority of corny lyrics. Combined with less complicated music they stood out even more in Paul's day.
 
MrKnickerbocker said:
Oh, absolutely. Maiden have never escaped having some corny lyrics on their albums, there's always at least one tune on every record with something incredibly corny in it. However, I think the first couple albums contain a majority of corny lyrics. Combined with less complicated music they stood out even more in Paul's day.
Click to expand...

The song Iron Maiden is a case in point. But even when the songwriting is less complicated songs can still be enjoyable. But I agree with your point!
 
Personally I find bad lyrics more of an issue with recent material as compared with early stuff. Not to say there is more of it but I give a by ball to the early stuff because of the age of the guys and the feel of the material. For example, Wildest Dreams would make me cringe more than Charlotte. Age of Innocence, however, fuck that :facepalm:
 
Dunno why they changed Dennis Willcock's original "well Charlotte you opened your legs for me"
 
fekso2017 said:
The point of the discussion was not who sang it, it was if the material itself could hold up to other classics. But point taken, Bruce Dickinson is the best and most important vocalist ever. I couldnt agree more.

And regarding your statement that the era is not important, at the end of the day its music. Its entertainment and in the grand scheme of things none of it is 'important' :)
Click to expand...
My point was that these songs are high in the Spotify stats because Bruce sings them. Non-Bruce versions would in the lower half (if these would be distinguished from live versions). If Bruce would never have done SOTC the song would be at the bottom or not even be IN the list.

Basically the deeper point is, that Spotify list probably has RTTH very high. In other words: a crap list with lots of "we want greatest hits and classics and we also happen to have heard RiR songs because it was released in this century and we happen to like these even if we do not know where they are originally from, but Bruce"-input.
 
Last edited:
I think Blaze gets far too much of hard time from Maiden fans. I know it's all opinions which are subjective but for me his time in Maiden was incredibly important and produced some fantastic songs. The x-factor is in my top 5 maiden albums I think it's brilliant.

It's clear that Bruce is the best fit for Maiden as a vocalist but I really like blazes deeper voice and in my opinion was a great choice for Maiden. What would have been the alternative, choose a Bruce clone that had a similar higher range voice? If they had done this Maiden fans would still be crying but it's not Bruce.

Just for the crack I would love to hear re recorded studio versions of both the Dianno and blaze albums with Bruce's voice, just out of curiosity. I would hate it if the band ever released these commercially but as part of a fans package like eddies archives it would be cool. Same as I'd like a live album with blaze singing Bruce stuff. I know he gets a hard time from folk saying he could t handle a lot of the Bruce era stuff live but I'm sure there must be a recording somewhere of a live gig with blaze where he was having a good night and sounded decent enough. I'd also love to hear dianno singing some of the Bruce stuff just for shits and giggles.
 
This subject has been a roller coaster for me over the years. Admittedly I couldn't fathom enjoying Blaze for a decade. It was bias pure and simple. I know now that He rocks and his voice is great. It took a while but ive come around . I was wrong.
Bruce is a legend however. And his voice is unmatched. the identical song will have a different feel depending on which of these two as on the mic. For instance judgement day/ 2 am and judgement of heaven, my three favorite Blaze songs, wouldn't sound as good without Blaze. Period. IMO.
As for Paul vs. Bruce? It's all Bruce for me. I love Killers and Paul is a main cog, obviously. But I'd rather hear Dickinson . Bruce is always an upgrade IMO On all fronts on this comparison.
On the lyrics subject: I've never cringed at a single lyric, outside of BYDTTS. (Not good) .
But Compared to the candy arse, hideous, uninspired , lazy, retreaded, and many times embarrassing lyrics I hear from most other artists songs anymore??
Maiden has run the gamut on subjects and lyrics over the years. Not all perfect, or even historically accurate. but not cringeworthy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top