[Help] What is so special about Iron Maiden in your opinion

No, seriously, I'm just reiterating a genuine, personal, point. :)

Dave Murray is what makes Maiden, for me, so special: his inspirational playing style (why I started playing); his guitar tone/sound (unique in the band itself, & pretty damn unique generally); his underappreciated (overall) writing; his loyalty; his humble upbringing & how he's handled fame; his solo-faces (pretty funny); his lovely double humbucker strat (now retired); his amusing voice; all his cool-as-fuck lead work (too many to mention); sorry, I've already mentioned "tone", but that Still Life solo on Maiden England (1988) --what an incredible sound! --& finally, the simple, unquestionable, fact that he's the best guitarist in Maiden! :D

(And, to be clear, that means better than that Adrian chap! :p)
 
I've read everyone's posts everyone has valid points. For me however, I think to do this right, you have to break this down into 3 groups.

1. Overall theme of music
2. Musicianship/style of music.
3. Overall presentation/stage presence/live show

1. Their overall them if you listen to just about all of their songs have to do with fear. Whether it be fear of the dark, death, evil spirits, or mostly horror of war and being a soldier forced to kill someone they din even know. These subjects are almost still all taboo, but they present it in a fascinating intelligent manner.

2. They, in my opinion, have the most complex melodies you'll ever hear from a band playing metal. The subtle slow intros that cascade into a full throttle gallop is just their signature and no one can replicate their sound. The dual guitar work is brilliant and Janick is good too but I think live he plays a lot of air guitar for theatrics. Dave and Adrian clearly run the show guitar wise live.

3. The only band that maiden can be compared to live is KISS. Believe me I am a diehard kiss fan and love them to death. Paul and gene are in their 60's now and age is getting to them. Theyre too busy selling toys right now anyway. Maiden is still young enough in their 50's to knock a snot bubble out of your nose live. Maiden and kiss are masters at taking you away and totally immersing yourselves into their live shows. Maiden are even more masterful at it because of the backdrops they use for every song.

To sum it all up, for me maiden takes taboo and often disturbing images and themes and presents them all in thoughtful and provacative ways that sometimes is informative as well as entertaining as hell!

I must add that in high school in 1986 I chose to write my senior English term paper on The Life of Samuel Taylor Coolridge because of loving Rime of the Ancient Mariner by maiden! How cool is that?!?
Got an a+ on the paper by the way!
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
No, seriously, I'm just reiterating a genuine, personal, point. :)

Dave Murray is what makes Maiden, for me, so special: his inspirational playing style (why I started playing); his guitar tone/sound (unique in the band itself, & pretty damn unique generally); his underappreciated (overall) writing; his loyalty; his humble upbringing & how he's handled fame; his solo-faces (pretty funny); his lovely double humbucker strat (now retired); his amusing voice; all his cool-as-fuck lead work (too many to mention); sorry, I've already mentioned "tone", but that Still Life solo on Maiden England (1988) --what an incredible sound! --& finally, the simple, unquestionable, fact that he's the best guitarist in Maiden! :D

(And, to be clear, that means better than that Adrian chap! :p)
Click to expand...
Well, I wasn't disregarding your opinion, I just sort of disagree with it. Especially, with that ridiculous last sentence of yours!:p
 
i have been thinking about this some more...........one word comes to mind "depth"............because of the range of songwriting between Harris, Smith and Dickinson.........their music just has a depth both lyrically and musically that no one else compares to.................the lives shows and the live energy also can not be compared to anyone else either.............and of course the mental imagery from all the visuals (Eddies, live shows, Dickinson/Harris)...........overall they have always covered the bases with songwriting, live shows and tying stuff together so well with imagery........."Depth" sums it all up........
 
You can disagree with my opinion... but the last sentence isn't an/my opinion; it's just a statement of fact, as I said. Seriously, how can you dispute this? :D
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft, I'm on your side with this one. It's so obvious that I'm always surprised when someone tries to defend a different opinion. Well, it must be irrational : maybe Adrian is better looking, but, as a guitar player he is far inferior from Davey, one of the cleanest guitar player in Metal. And Davey is a great songwriter. And he was there from nearly the beginning, he has believed in Steve's ideas from the start, which shows how smart he is. I absolutely LOVE what Steve states about this in the Maiden biography (the bit where Davey says that, at some point, he feared to be sacked, after Doug Sampson and Dennis Stratton).
 
And what did Steve say? (--I don't have the Maiden biography you refer to.)

Incidentally, & this isn't to bolster my position, but outside Maiden-fandom Adrian is viewed as a fairly standard run-of-the-mill rhythm/lead guitarist; nothing special. I'm not saying that's what I think, but Davey genuinely is an amazing guitarist. No question he's the better guitarist.
 
Mick Wall, Run to the Hills, 2004 ed.,

p. 114 : Dave talking about his fear of being sacked by Steve and Rod.
" [...] And maybe I was a bit frightened that I was gonna be the next to go."

p. 116, Steve on the matter :
"Davey, of all people, has never been in fear of losing his job into Maiden. He fell out with Dennis Wilcock, yes, but I was sorry about that, and when he rejoined the band, I thought he actually showed a lot of faith in me and the songs, which I thought was brilliant, and I've never forgotten that."

Elsewhere, I read that he was really gratefull to Dave for sharing his musical vision.

If you don't own Run to the Hills, you must absolutely buy it. I'm not found of "rock books" in general, but this one is just great, a rally detailed account of Maiden's history, mostly for the early years (145 p. for the years 1975-1980, on a total of 390, and the book has a usefull index).
 
Lol.

There's no way to prove that Dave is a better guitarist than Adrian. They're too close in skill. It's not like Slash vs Buckethead or anything where one clearly is more skilled than the other.

And how other people outside of the forums views Dave is irrelevant. Most people outside the forums don't even know Dave exists.
 
I wonder what you, guys, would have had to prove your opinion if Adrian had left Urchin in the very beginning and had joined Maiden the first time they asked him. How does the fact that Dave was there at the beginning prove his superiority as a guitarist?
 
I think Adrian is objectively a better guitarist. He's evolved more, and still is evolving. Primal Rock Rebellion and The Final Frontier feature playing and tone that I had never heard before from Adrian. Even really small things like his choice in chord voicing have changed in the past 10 years. His sound has never stayed the same for too long, and he's always been the most open to experimentation. Introducing Maiden to synthesizers for example.

Dave on the other hand, has maintained the same style over the years. He sounds the same now as he did 30 years ago. It's not necessarily a bad thing, the real problem is that his solos are starting to suffer. Recent albums have had mostly hit and miss solos, which is gonna happen anyway with improv, but the amount of forgettable solos has increased over the years. In the 80's almost all of his solos were ace. And live he's starting to get lazy with solos, see reunion era footage of Number of the Beast to get my point. The guy is a great player and writes some good songs, but he hasn't evolved, which leaves him left in the dust with players like Adrian.

I feel bad for dissing the guy so I'll say something positive, his solo on The Longest Day is fucking killer, and The Man Who Would Be King is filled with awesome. :D
 
Well, everyone here is saying all the smart guitar answers with Dave vs Adrian so I'll go with this. What it all boils down to when it comes to Dave vs Adrian is not just their amazing guitar work BUT.....who has the as hell singing voice? I think we know who that is *cough*Adrian*cough* :p
 
Mosh, I genuinely take your points on board, in regard to H's development. But, to be honest, I don't see a great leap forward in his technique/style. His sound hasn't changed much either. (Is H playing any better now, than in 1986? I don't think so, personally.) And, if he's personally responsible for the tone of his guitar (both in studio & on tour), then I don't think it's better than Dave's; & it never has been. This is probably just personal opinion (previous point, & this one...), but H's tone/sound can be very thin live; Dave's guitar tone is far, far superior, to my ears. Just personal taste though.

That's all set-up though. To move on to technique; technically, sorry, H is just really mechanical in comparison to Dave. Dave is just as effective as H as a rhythm guitar player, & clearly he's the better lead guitarist. And you can talk all you want about Dave being lazy live, but H's NotB lead was a piece of piss anyway; Dave's crap version is better than H's studio version. You talk about H moving on & changing; the guy plays everything exactly as on the albums! I love this, but I think it shows his lack of ability (or perhaps just willingness) to improvise (live). No big deal, but improvisation is pretty difficult, & Dave makes it look very, very easy. I suspect he's just better at it.

My point is, they're both very different & I admire a lot about about both their styles. Adrian has a lot of admirable qualities & many of them lend themselves to songwriting; skills where he clearly outshines, in some respects, Dave. However, in pure guitar playing terms, Dave is very, very natural --he is better at improvising; his set-up (tone/sound/effects, etc) is better; his style is far less mechanical; his style is individual/distinct (H's is not); Dave has all the tricks H has, & more; Dave is difficult to imitate (H is not) --& I just feel these all contribute (for me at least; as these are all just my opinion) to him being a "better" guitarist.

My entire thinking regarding the two of them (& this is going to sound really lame, as in many other respects I'd take the other side in this argument) rests on this simple point (& this shapes every aspect of how I discuss them): most folk who pick up a guitar could learn to play like Adrian. Hell, Adrian has learnt to play like Adrian. It sounds really good, but it's very workman-like. Dave's playing is something else though. The guy just has something else that is more difficult to learn, & that he has had from a very early stage in his playing. I don't like the word "natural", or "gift", but Dave has it, & H doesn't; something (very) special.
 
Honestly, I wanted to admit you had some valid points here. But reading your last paragraph... Wow, this is ridiculous.
 
You can still admit it! :D
[I just used "special" to keep on topic :p]

Btw, what's ridiculous (I already conceded it sounded lame) about some people having natural talent? I'm just saying Adrian's style is easier, in my opinion, as a guitarist, to learn (i.e. imitate), than Dave's. I think this is because his (Dave's) technique is more advanced. I happen to think it sounds better too.
 
It's not about having a natural talent. It's about you dissing Adrian (and I will not put up with it! :p ), or at least that's how it sounds to me.
Are you telling me that a football player who trains for half an hour a day is a better player than one who trains for four hours, just because the latter is a perfectionist who wants to polish his moves to perfection?
 
No, I'm saying some people think Brazilian footballers have "natural" talent & (let's say) Italian players don't, so much --it's coached into them. People "born" with talent (not that I really buy into this, but you get my drift) & people who learn/acquire skills. More practise (your example) does not (to me) equal (necessarily) better; although it can make the difference. Is this not a fairly well trodden theorem? George Best was a better footballer than most of the guys around him who practised more, & drunk less. Yes/No?

Seriously, I'm not dissing Adrian. It's inevitable, with comparisons, that some of this might be interpreted as criticism of one, & high praise of the other; the former wasn't intended. I really love his playing, & the fact that he now looks like a King! :D. They're both fantastic guitarists, but it's pretty clear that Adrian has progressively become a more accomplished guitarist i.e. through practise etc. Maybe he has passed Dave now (not my opinion), but Dave had an awful lot of this 35 years ago. I'm suggesting (or observing) that Dave had all this very early ("natural" talent if you want; more likely he developed very, very quickly), & that Adrian has taken longer to reach this level.

Look, in some respects (as I've already said), I don't really buy this "development" argument. They both sounded pretty damn fantastic back in the mid-eighties, to me. And I'll be eternally grateful to Adrian for experimenting with guitar synths...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top