GATEKEEPERS!!!! ... or: the butthurt modern listeners.

How are they equally gimmick bands?
I didn't say anything about "equally". One could argue about degrees of "gimmickness" sorry for that atrocious word but I'm not that interested in that angle. I meant it in the sense of "do these bands have a recognizable gimmick?" and for both of them the answer is yes, in my opinion.

Maiden have always put effort into their visual identity. Their logos, the artwork, Eddie, the theatrical props in their live shows, and so on. We are talking about a band that has a dude in stilts walking around the stage play-fighting with various band members. Or stuff like the stage turning into a giant tank on the AMOLAD tour. The inflatable Spitfire on LOTB. Even when they tried stripping down their sound and image in the early 90s we still had Eddie bust out of a giant coffin.
While there are a few albums here and there that are seen as weaker, I think we can all agree that Maiden haven't compromised the artistry of their sound for the most part. Like, yeah, Steve for example gets a lot of shit for the "2 minutes quiet intro/outro", but I think most would still agree that he's doing what he wants, that he genuinely believes that what he's writing and delivers deserves to be released and heard. That's why I think it would be fair to say Maiden use gimmicks or have a gimmick (Eddie and all the visual stuff), without saying "they are a gimmick band" and meaning that in a negative way.

I can't really judge Ghost's music, since I don't listen to them. They clearly have a visual gimmick that is obviously one of the reasons for their popularity. There also seems to be a mismatch of their visual identity and sound, since the latter seems to be much less heavy than what their looks would imply. What I find is annoying when people conflate "Ghost suck" and "they have a gimmick" into one opinion. No one needs to like them, I don't really care for them. But just because they have a marketable gimmick doesn't mean they suck for that reason. It's a leap in logic that I see quite often. Might seem like semantics or overanalyzing negative opinions, but personally I find it more interesting if people would be more precise with their criticisms. It's obviously a lot to ask for, but it's also far more enjoyable to engage with. Seeing how people approach certain topics and how they express their ideas can be pretty fascinating, at least to me.

TL;DR: They aren't equally gimmicky but both use recognizable gimmicks, which is not a negative thing to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yax
TL;DR: They aren't equally gimmicky but both use recognizable gimmicks, which is not a negative thing to me.
Sorry, I disagree with both you and Yax. Ghost is a gimmick band, Maiden have gimmicks. To be clear, I don’t think that gimmick is a negative term. Probably a better way to phrase it is that Ghost are a conceptual group. Their music and their image are intertwined; their whole concept is essentially that they’re a Satanic cult writing pop metal. I think it’s pretty cool, but it’s still a gimmick.

Maiden are absolutely gimmicky, but their music is not part of some larger concept. This to me is the distinction.
 
Ghost is absolutely metal. They use all the same chord progressions, lyrical themes, chugging guitar riffs, etc as other metal bands. Judas Priest has radio friendly hit songs. By your logic Priest isn't metal. This whole "I don't like this band so that means they aren't metal" argument is beyond tiresome.

All the classic bands have radio friendly hit songs, that's why Ghost were a breath of fresh air, bringing back hits and toning down the influences from extreme metal.
 
Sorry, I disagree with both you and Yax. Ghost is a gimmick band, Maiden have gimmicks. To be clear, I don’t think that gimmick is a negative term. Probably a better way to phrase it is that Ghost are a conceptual group. Their music and their image are intertwined; their whole concept is essentially that they’re a Satanic cult writing pop metal. I think it’s pretty cool, but it’s still a gimmick.

Maiden are absolutely gimmicky, but their music is not part of some larger concept. This to me is the distinction.
That's fair. If I think gimmick band my mind goes to the various power metal bands that have one concept like knights, pirates, wizards and what not, who base everything around that. I'm not familiar enough with Ghost to know if their songs and topics all revolve around the same concepts or not.
 
Also, there's nothing more gimmicky than Death Metal and Black Metal :lol:

Bunches of social outcasts singing about eating babies and burning churches:lol:
 
You can throw in dungeons and dragons bands, and cunts writing tuneless shit in odd time signatures to impress nerds, too.
Yeah, there are musical gimmicks too, if you can call them that (you'd have to widen the definition of a gimmick, I suppose). I have a coworker who finds Maiden's galloping incredibly cringy and "gimmicky" and thinks Run to the Hills is hilarious (and bad).
 
Also, there's nothing more gimmicky than Death Metal and Black Metal :lol:

Bunches of social outcasts singing about eating babies and burning churches:lol:
There are plenty of gimmicky bands in both genres but they are not gimmicky in-and-of themselves.
 
You can throw in dungeons and dragons bands, and cunts writing tuneless shit in odd time signatures to impress nerds, too.
Where's the report button?

im-in-this-photo-and-i-dont-like-it.png


:D
 
I love the whole Eddie gimmick ,and it`s very saleable too and not just for Maiden.

Quite a few people wouldn`t have made a few quid on Ebay selling the empty beer bottles for example without the Eddie gimmick.
 
I love the whole Eddie gimmick ,and it`s very saleable too and not just for Maiden.

Quite a few people wouldn`t have made a few quid on Ebay selling the empty beer bottles for example without the Eddie gimmick.

:hello: I once sold one for £9.99 (including postage and packaging).

I have a few more available in case you are interested. :P
 
Back
Top