Here we go again...Iron Maiden sued over the rights of 6 songs

Forostar said:
It is possible to give a fuck without taking action. Read e.g. Paul Day's comments from a few years back on the previous page. It hurts when you have been part of something and are not recognized at all. Ignored and wiped out of Maiden's history.
Click to expand...

They're not ignored and wiped out of Maiden's history. Watch The Early Days and read Run to the Hills. Their names and contributions are enumerated. It's true their songwriting didn't get properly credited, but they are part of the official Maiden story.
 
Forostar said:
It is possible to give a fuck without taking action. Read e.g. Paul Day's comments from a few years back on the previous page. It hurts when you have been part of something and are not recognized at all. Ignored and wiped out of Maiden's history.

I don't know. Perhaps he is really very agitated by the reactions from the Maiden camp, the Maiden fans and Blabbermouth commentators.

I am more interested in the (outcome of the) trial itself.
Click to expand...

I’m sorry but maybe I’m just looking at all this with a totally different view point but as far as I’m concerned Dennis Willcock, Paul Day and anyone else involved in Maiden pre the 1st album have had about as much recognition as they should have. They are mentioned in dvds and books and that’s it. None of these people were part of the band when maiden signed their record deal and released the 1st album and it’s just pure green eyed monster jealousy that Maiden got massive years after they left and are now well over stating the part they played.

I’ll include Paul Day in this, I could not give a flying fuck if he wrote all the lyrics to strange world or not. That song is a VERY minor footnote in the grand scheme of things. To listen to that fool McKay on Blabbermouth you’d think that if not for Denis Willcock they’d be no Maiden today. What a load of poppycock.

When these guys were playing with Steve they were playing in a pub band, nothing more. They all walked away or were fired from a pub band. None of them gave a shit about any of their song writing contributions back then and only years later after maiden get big they come crawling out of their caves overstating their importance in the history of the band and and demanding money.

Even when the first two albums were released maiden were still firmly B league and only when Bruce joined did they hit the big time so none of the early pub band members contributed to massive hit albums or singles.

Now, if McKay could prove beyond doubt that Steve has been nicking other people’s songs all they way through maidens career then I might listen. If he could prove that songs from POM, powerslave and onwards all had lyrics and music nicked from other songs I’d be inclined to believe Steve has had his hand in the cookie jar and should be made to pay people. Until then people like Denis Willcock can do one. And before anyone mentions it yes I know about Nomad but I’m talking about the big hits like aces high, 2 minutes to midnight, the trooper, wasted years etc.

As a matter of principle I would hire the best lawyers in the world and grind McKay into the ground and bankrupt him for life with the cost of all this!
 
Wayne, no matter how "minor" strange world may be, put yourself in his shoes. If true, he is owed potentially life changing money for something that is rightfully his, a sum that would, incidentally, be nothing to the band. It's not a matter of greed either, he has expressed the issue before. Regardless of money, Paul has struggled musically since Maiden and to have his name as a credit would likely mean a great deal, acknowledging his genuine contribution. I'm sure if you were in the same position as him you'd feel the same.

The bottom line is, if true this is a great deal to Paul, and very little to Maiden.
 
Forostar said:
What a load of bull nothing to do with the accusations. Especially about Paul Day, a man who never attacked Maiden. He has expressed his sadness on the miscredits a while back. In right wording. No need to stampede over that with black and white ignorance.

A song credit is a credit, no matter when someone contributed, no matter how important a song is. It is about WHAT someone has done in relation to THAT SONG. All the other stuff is of no importance.
Click to expand...


A load of Bull to you but not to me. My opinion is my opinion and I’ll stand by this. If someone wants a song writing credit then they state that then when they write a song at the time not 30+ years later when an old pub band they played in happens to make it big.
 
Last edited:
He could get credits at any point in time in last 30 years. After first album, second album or even after NotB. But he choose now is good time. He claim that he never was listening to their music after being kicked out. Then they make PR stunts with lie detectors and shit. It in any way doesn’t look like sincere fight for something that you have right to. And after hearing bootleg it’s clear - mediocre musician with almost no talent, who even didn’t record anything in studio with Iron Maiden because he wasn’t good enough in terms of music/talent/same goals after 30 years found easy way for cash.

Not saying that he doesn’t deserve credits if he did something worth crediting for. Now he looks like douche who’s trying to milk cow that never even belonged to him in first place. Truth is that maiden become great because fired people like him.
 
Forostar said:
A song credit is a credit, no matter when someone contributed, no matter how important a song is. It is about WHAT someone has done in relation to THAT SONG. All the other stuff is of no importance.
Click to expand...

So I suppose Wilcock will settle for the credit alone, no money?
 
Forostar said:
Last time Maiden rather paid money than anything else. Not sure what McKay wants to achieve this time. Until now, it looks like more than that: credit.
And with credit comes money, naturally. It's not up to McKay and co. It depends on how the case goes and how Maiden responds to this.
Click to expand...

I know the right and just thing to do here is give Willcock credit, provided he can actually prove that he deserves it. However, let's consider that what you and I want as an outcome does not necessarily mean is what Willcock wants. If all he wants is credit, then why wait for 40 years to sue for it? Why file a lawsuit at the most inconvenient time for Maiden, knowing from experience that they will pay off quickly to minimise the inconvenience?

I believe that to a certain extent, McKay is in it for the justice. His unprofessional behaviour in the Blabbermouth comments section (by far one of the worst places on the internet) speaks for him being more of an idealist. But I think Willcock is in it 100% for the money and nothing else.
 
I still get the impression some of these old Maiden figures were only ever semi-bothered about the matter, until someone made it his mission to talk them into launching a crusade. The actual motivation for that is a lot less clear. The level of anger can't be explained by a feeling of injustice alone.
 
Ok you people went far and wide here. Like Perun says proof is needed. No proof no case.
Besides CTH and Strange World, these songs made Maiden no money and no name compared to what HBTN did for them. That's why McKay is barking like a mad dog. He needs to create a bubble of negativity where Harris is declared as an art thief so he can set up his reputation before the proceedings.

Personally, I see no case here because McKay and his camp can't prove the source. What would even be the procedure to do it? Tell me what kind of record would need to surface in order for the independent court to say, yup, for sure the ex-Member John Doe wrote that song. A videotape of the member coming in to rehearsal carrying a sheet of lyrics with him giving it to Steve as a proposal for a song? A recording of a prior band of John Doe, playing the song?

I mean even if the latter happened there would be valid questions of authenticity. Take some old gear and a 4-track and you can come up with an authentic-sounding 1970s "demo tape".

@Forostar, case was already there all these years. It was known that Murray didn't write the lyrics for Charlotte, because he didn't write any lyrics for Maiden whatsoever in his 40 years with the band. It was presumed all these years that Harris didn't remember who wrote them, or a lot of members (some being ex at that moment) were involved and it was done for simplicity. It was also presumed that former members of Maiden are friends with Harris and those missing credits were taken care of, compensated, via other friendly means.
 
Forostar said:
I dislike it when someone has been treated in an unfair manner), the justice element (if someone deserves credit, if there was writing involvement)
Click to expand...

Here's where I see the problem: This far, it's just an accusation. McKay said in one of his Blabberpuke rants that Willcock isn't suing, McKay himself is. But that's just a side note. The point is: In our system, someone is innocent until proven guilty. Before McKay provides actual proof for his case, we cannot judge whether Willcock has been treated unfairly, whether he deserves credit, or whether he even cares at all.
 
Forostar said:
Last time Maiden rather paid money than anything else. Not sure what McKay wants to achieve this time. Until now, it looks like more than that: credit.
And with credit comes money, naturally. It's not up to McKay and co. It depends on how the case goes and how Maiden responds to this.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, McKay is asking for 2 million pounds for Dennis Willcock, so money is definitely something he wants.
 
Note To Self: Credit everyone or don’t be amazed when someone who wrote one word decides to sue you.
 
Forostar said:
Yes, but before the case is in court they are already judged unfairly imo.
Click to expand...

You cannot know this because you do not know if their allegations are true. Maybe they are, and they are being treated unfairly - and maybe not. You can of course go by your hunch, but others may not or may have a different hunch.

Forostar said:
You could say Day and Willcock are innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...

This is not how presumption of innocence works. The Harris/Maiden camp are under attack here by the McKay/Willcock/whoever camp. The party making the claim is the party that has to back it up. I'm not saying their case is unjust or their party is lying, I am simply saying I am not going to say they are right or wrong until they provide their evidence. And therefore, I am not willing to turn against the Harris/Maiden camp until they are proved to be guilty of anything.
 
Forostar said:
The McKay/Willcock/whoever camp are under attack by the public. A little early in harsh in my opinion. And without anything to back that up.
Click to expand...

McKay is certainly stirring the pot by saying "fuck you" to people who are questioning him and calling them "idiot", don't you think? On a purely personal level, I would not be sad if McKay lost because I have an extremely low opinion of him as a person.

Forostar said:
Others say that or use words that sound like they find their case unjust and hope they loose, without anything reasonably to back that up.
Click to expand...

I do find the case curious. I believe McKay must turn up new evidence to prove his case, because what is there this far is not convincing in my opinion. I am also questioning the motivation of McKay and Willcock. I personally am not convinced this is about justice or about "just getting credit".

Forostar said:
I am not not willing to turn against the Harris/Maiden camp until they are proved to be guilty of anything.
Click to expand...

Do I read this correctly that you mean to say you're willing to say the Harris/Maiden camp is guilty even if they are not proven to be so?
 
Foro I didn't mean friendship is the compensation but that Harris paid them off in some other format. I don't think he would let anyone starve and was willing to help out from his fortune.
In any case Maiden is innocent until proven guilty so McKay either put his money where his mouth is or STFU. However if this case of his fails Maiden could try to sue him back for defamation.

This construct of his, the alleged beyond-importance of old rusty members from teenage days and old rusty songs from demo years that weren't played live properly since they became a big band, the shitting on Steve Harris work of a lifetime, is frankly outrageous. I can swallow that several lyric lines in HBTN were important for the future of the band but Charlotte the Harlot?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top