Does Bruce Make Iron Maiden?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
A

Anonymous

Guest
I've been recently hearing (erm, mostly reading) a lot of things like "without Bruce Dickinson there wouldn't be any 'real' Iron Maiden". I don't think that's true, it's pretty much bullshit. Bruce is a very good singer though, but without him there would anyway be the Iron Maiden. So I'm just wondering if you've heard anything like this, it's mostly from the time Bruce wasn't in Maiden, when Blaze was there. Yes, I know that Blaze was hated by many fans, so was that why people started thinking "Bruce really made Iron Maiden"? Although Bruce is a person who has done a lot (authoring, fencing etc.) and the most remarkable thing is probably his solo work. But anyway, every member of the band are just as important as the other, aren't they? Just wanted to know your opinion.


(btw sorry for my english...)
 
I personally believe Blaze was a fantastic singer, and I would of been more than happy if bruce never returned (although BNW and DoD are some of my faverouite albums). But yes, Bruce probably does make iron maiden what they are....Without him the band wouldnt still be selling out shows, and they wouldnt be as popular as they are today.
 
Put in your wonderfully blunt and tactless manner, Conor. [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\":P\" border=\"0\" alt=\"tongue.gif\" /]

Essentially, people who say Bruce 'makes' Iron Maiden are completely wrong. There is no one member that 'makes' a band (excepting bands like Aryeon and Bathory, which are single artist projects with guest musicians). Each member, be he (or she!) the guitarist, vocalist, drummer, keyboardist or bassist, adds their own element to the music. Okay, looking at bands there are obvious frontmen. Bruce is one. Hansi Kursch is another (okay, I'm listening to BG at the moment [img src=\"style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\":P\" border=\"0\" alt=\"tongue.gif\" /]). But a lot of the time these vocalist frontmen don't contribute a great deal to the band.
Case Study 1: Nightwish
Symphonic Power Metal from Finland. Female Fronted. Up until Oct 2005, Tarja Turunen was the band's vocalist and frontwoman. However, she did not contribute to the band. She sang, but only the words and melody lines written for her by the keyboardist and 'main man', Tuomas Holopainen. Now, looking at Tuomas, you can see that he is quite a shy person (except on stage)-he likes to just stay back and write the music, rather than being a forward person, yelling to the crowd during concerts and so on.

Now, in Maiden we have a similar situation. 'Arry is known for being shy, and so he doesn't talk much to the magazines and press on his own, even though he is the founding member and most prolific songwriter. Bruce, on the other hand, is well recognised for his charisma and confidence, as well as his eloquence when facing the camera. This contributes to the decision to make him a frontman. Now, as to him 'making' the band, he doesn't. He's an excellent vocalist and a great songwriter, but he is not Maiden. 'Arry is. Sometimes the fame can go to Bruce's head, and he does come over as highly arrogant sometimes, but that's to be expected from the frontman of one of the world's premier metal bands. If Bruce left, Maiden would carry on. If the rest of the band left and only 'Arry was left, they would still continue (hell, the band was destroyed sometime in the 70's, when the then vocalist Whats-his-name (was it Paul Day?) fired the rest of the band). So it is not right to judge a band by its vocalist. While the main man of the band is frequently the vocalist, there is quite often a share of power (as seen in Maiden or Priest or Dark Tranquillity) or a monopoly by one of the other members (Tuomas of Nightwish), and this can vary greatly between bands. Generally speaking, when a band member begins to think they're better than the rest of the band, things start to go downhill... ::
 
[!--quoteo(post=135864:date=Apr 29 2006, 09:21 PM:name=Silky)--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Silky @ Apr 29 2006, 09:21 PM) [snapback]135864[/snapback][/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]
He's an excellent vocalist and a great songwriter, but he is not Maiden. 'Arry is. Sometimes the fame can go to Bruce's head, and he does come over as highly arrogant sometimes, but that's to be expected from the frontman of one of the world's premier metal bands. If Bruce left, Maiden would carry on. If the rest of the band left and only 'Arry was left, they would still continue[/quote]
It's a bit like Shaffer in Iced Earth. He writes most of the songs but they've gone through three different singers.
 
Bruce might be the "commercial" element in Maiden.

But the true heart of IM is Steve Harris.
 
Think you hit the nail on the head there brother of a 7th son!! Without Bruce as frontman, Maiden surley wouldnt still be on the road selling out shows with Blaze (although he was a god)But does Bruce Make Iron Maiden?? Well....Nah!! Hes definetley carried them but i still would'nt go as far as to say "he is" Maiden! Heck yeah Bruce can sing like his b@^$s aint dropped yet giving the band that spark. But i think Bruce needed Maiden as much as Maiden needed him to get where he is now.
 
We'll never know if Blaze could have sold out the venues Bruce did because of grunge and the ADD of the MTV generation. Quite simply, metal faded away at the same time Bruce left the band...and it started coming back around the time when Bruce returned.
 
*Repeat*

I find Maiden newbs often credit Bruce as "THE FACE OF MAIDEN", until they become more interested in reading song credits and see that without Harris there is no vision, no realization. Not to mention that Steve is one of the best bass players ever.
 
LooseCannon said:
We'll never know if Blaze could have sold out the venues Bruce did because of grunge and the ADD of the MTV generation.  Quite simply, metal faded away at the same time Bruce left the band...and it started coming back around the time when Bruce returned.
Click to expand...
LooseCannon is (obviously) right.  ;D
There is a correlation between these factors (Bruce's return in the band and the metal come back) BUT it doesn't mean there is a causal relationship. ;)
 
JackKnife said:
LooseCannon is (obviously) right.  ;D
There is a correlation between these factors (Bruce's return in the band and the metal come back) BUT it doesn't mean there is a causal relationship. ;)
Click to expand...

Indeed.  Maiden's growing popularity contributed to the renaissance of metal, but it can't be solely attributed to Bruce, or indeed Maiden.  H made as much of a stir with his return, except among the Blaze-bashers who thought Bruce should never have left.  However, the new wave of metal bands in the late 90's no doubt helped the rebirth of the genre.  With bands such as Nightwish and the other Symphonic genres, as well as bands like Dark Tranquillity and In Flames growing in fame, the genre was bound to be reborn anyway.  There have been so many great bands growing in fame since around 1995, that metal has spread further than ever (except for the 80's).  Look at it this way.  Many of the most popular metal bands today were formed in the late 80's (Blind Guardian, Kamelot, Helloween etc.).  Those that released their premier albums did so after several years of trying to get a label deal.  Many are European, and so have not spread to UK/America until recently (Blind Guardian only became popular after 1998's Nightfall in Middle-Earth).  This 'knock-on' effect has meant that the full rejuvination of the metal scene was not realistically felt until around 1998/99, when many of the bands I've named now had enough underground fame to break into the world market.  Perhaps, Maiden, instead of 'causing' this renaissance, were in turn affected by it (although they no doubt added to it with BNW).  It's very hard to separate these factors; after all, a good release by a band will get them noticed, which will pull other bands into the eye of the metal scene.  Everytime a band writes a masterpiece, they inspire new bands to try harder and follow in their footsteps.  Every time a band releases a crap release, it gets noticed by the media and they  get sucked into the mainstream trend-so remember kids, every time you buy a nu-metal/metalcore album, God kills a kitten! :P
 
I don't think Bruce 'makes' Maiden. I really liked the Blaze era!! However, they are better with Bruce as the frontman. Maiden is a team and replacing someone as imprtant as Bruce just wouldn't suit Maiden as you can see from the fans' reactions over Blaze. Some bands just can't successfully have member changes. Look at Rush.....................if any member of Rush left, how can they possibly be replaced and still be Rush??? Gowan took over for Dennis DeYoung in Styx and although Gowan is great........it's not the same.

Bruce may not 'be' Maiden but he sure is the voice of Maiden.
 
bruce does not make iron maiden, every member is just as important, but iron maiden is more than just people, its more than some guys, the band members might die someday, but iron maiden will never die
 
Iron Maiden - as we know it nowadays - could not exist without Bruce. No theatrical stage, no movement on the stage, etc etc, nothing but a great music. And great music isnt enough in music industry... :)

Remember all that big business started when Bruce had come.
 
edbaldhead said:
Would Iron Maiden be Iron Maiden without Steve? No!
Click to expand...

i dont think so. IM is an independent live organism. just look at the Deep Purple. I like them alot better without Richie.
 
agdabavipainlink=topic=12214.msg136658#msg136658date=1147346669 said:
IM is an independent live organism. just look at the Deep Purple. I like them alot better without Richie.
Click to expand...
What do these two statements, about Iron Maiden and Deep Purple, have to do with each other, apart from the careless English? Are you saying that Maiden would be better without Steve? :huh:
 
SilentLucidity said:
Are you saying that Maiden would be better without Steve? :huh:
Click to expand...

no. i say that Steve is NOT Iron Maiden. He could be the heart and the brain of the band but he could not be Iron Maiden itself
 
agdabavipain said:
Steve is NOT Iron Maiden. He could be the heart and the brain of the band but he could not be Iron Maiden itself.
Click to expand...
Take a man, and remove his heart and brain. What do you get?

agdabavipain said:
Iron Maiden - as we know it nowadays - could not exist without Bruce.
Click to expand...
We are getting there. So do you believe that Bruce is more important for the band than Steve?
 
Would Mozart have made the career his did without Salieri?
Would JFK be so dubiously famous without Lee Harvey Oswald?
Would Newton have been such a great physicist without an apple tree? Or Archimedes without a bath tub?

Why give credit to either Bruce or Steve and forget about Adrian, Janick, Dave, Nicko, Clive, Paul, Dennis, and the multitude of guitar players who briefly joined the band in the late 70?

Iron Maiden is an entity that's larger than the mere sum of its parts.



*sigh*  What a sterile discussion...  :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top