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

Demigod_Tyek said:
Also, I understand if they need to remove Hallowed from the setlist after this, again. But how would that possibly work for Iron Maiden itself? Yes, it is overplayed as all hell, but it's been their main set closer since, well, forever. And they have the huge Eddie for it each time. So if they did have to drop Iron Maiden as a song, what would they possibly put in its place?
Click to expand...
Number of the Beast and Fear of the Dark would be my first guess. Wasted Years would do well too. I hate to say it but I think they would realistically do Running Free and Sanctuary.
 
Collin said:
Number of the Beast and Fear of the Dark would be my first guess. Wasted Years would do well too. I hate to say it but I think they would realistically do Running Free and Sanctuary.
Click to expand...
IESF (no necropolis)->TNOTB intro->TNOTB would work well with the hell theme
 
Demigod_Tyek said:
Also, I understand if they need to remove Hallowed from the setlist after this, again. But how would that possibly work for Iron Maiden itself? Yes, it is overplayed as all hell, but it's been their main set closer since, well, forever. And they have the huge Eddie for it each time. So if they did have to drop Iron Maiden as a song, what would they possibly put in its place?
Click to expand...
Honestly, I don't see them ever dropping it. No matter what. They only really dropped "Hallowed" to avoid further complications, they were never forced to do it. IIRC, McKay himself even called out to that, that they didn't actually have to stop playing the song.
 
qhwlxoh.jpg
 
I first learnt Dennis Willcock's name in around 1986. This was as a young kid, Maiden-mad and hungry for any information I could find about the band in magazines etc. I knew Dennis' name, had a couple of pictures of him, and knew the years that he was in the band. All of this I learnt from the other side of the world in a pre-Google manner.

The thought that Mr. Willcock could live in England, surrounded by hardcore fans of one of the biggest bands in the world, and NOT have a single one of them talk to him about the songs on the first album is ridiculous. Saying that he "turned his back on the music business" misses the point - hundreds (or even thousands) of people that he interacted with between 1980 and 2014 knew who he was and knew how big Maiden were. He would have constantly been reminded of the band's success. And yet he is claiming that he never thought to himself "hmmm....I wrote a bunch of original songs with those guys back in the day, I wonder if they ever recorded them?".

Laughable.
 
Last edited:
Number 6 said:
Would any of these fuckers have even bothered to open a lawsuit if Maiden had ended up flopping? I think not. Which is why all of this is stupid and ridiculous! You can't expect a bunch of 20-year-olds who had been writing music for 5 years at the start of their career to track down every single past band member who may or may not have contributed to the songs. Not only is it impossible considering Maiden's formation has once changed nearly every week, but also: no one does that. It's outrageous!
Click to expand...


My exact thoughts. When you start a band in your early 20’s, all you want to do is play, try to get some gigs and people that come to see you and you’re more than happy when you finally succeed to write a few songs.

At that moment you don’t really think about who’s written what and how you are going to handle the future income you’re going to make out of it. In Maiden’s situation it becomes even more difficult to keep track of who has done what with all those different members the band had.

But anyway, we all know that the heart of the matter is not to get any recognition but trying to get as much money as possible. Had Maiden stayed an obscure band, would anyone even cared about having their songs « stolen » by them? IMO, the answer is pretty obvious !
 
evil_ash said:
I first learnt Dennis Willcock's name in around 1986. This was as a young kid, Maiden-mad and hungry for any information I could find about the band in magazines etc. I knew Dennis' name, had a couple of pictures of him, and knew the years that he was in the band. All of this I learnt from the other side of the world in a pre-Google manner.

The thought that Mr. Willcock could live in England, surrounded by hardcore fans of one of the biggest bands in the world, and NOT have a single one of them talk to him about the songs on the first album is ridiculous. Saying that he "turned his back on the music business" misses the point - hundreds (or even thousands) of people that he interacted with between 1980 and 2014 knew who he was and knew how big Maiden were. He would have constantly been reminded of the band's success. And yet he is claiming that he never thought to himself "hmmm....I wrote a bunch of original songs with those guys back in the day, I wonder if they ever recorded them?".

Laughable.
Click to expand...

At the very least, you'd think he would have been contacted during the writing of the biographies (Running Free in 1986, Run to the Hills in 1998) or the production of The Early Days. He obviously didn't participate in any of those, but it sounds very difficult to believe that he was at no point curious what his old band mates were up to.

On the plus side, Steve might be obliged to turn up some of the old recordings he claims to still have to prove the lyrics were there before Willcock was in the band.
 
Demigod_Tyek said:
Also, I understand if they need to remove Hallowed from the setlist after this, again. But how would that possibly work for Iron Maiden itself? Yes, it is overplayed as all hell, but it's been their main set closer since, well, forever. And they have the huge Eddie for it each time. So if they did have to drop Iron Maiden as a song, what would they possibly put in its place?
Click to expand...
Iron-Maiden-05.jpg

"I've Got The Fire" confirmed? :lol::lol:
 
permanenteddie said:
But anyway, we all know that the heart of the matter is not to get any recognition but trying to get as much money as possible. Had Maiden stayed an obscure band, would anyone even cared about having their songs « stolen » by them? IMO, the answer is pretty obvious !
Click to expand...
Not sure about this - when the last lawsuit happened I started reading around the subject of plagiarism and one thing that stood out is that you rarely see such lawsuits between artists at the same level, be that level highly prominent or extremely obscure. They seem in the main to arise when one party starts to get more successful with the other's material - so it's less about money and more about "look at me ..."
 
They'll probably just settle for a sum significantly less than the purported 2 million figure and it'll all be over with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jcv
I don't know how British law works, but it seems to be that putting your side of the lawsuit into the best terms possible is usually the best way to look for leverage, especially when what you really want is to settle. I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that this particular lawsuit will be settled very rapidly. Mr McKay has proven that he is very good at playing the public relations side of the lawsuit game, after all, there is a reason why this lawsuit was filed during the largest tour in a long time.
 
GhostofCain said:
#YouBlameMcKay??? :lol:
Click to expand...
Actually, #IBlameRod :p
I strongly suspect it was his idea not to credit ex-members, "Bloody debut album Steve, think about it, there's five of you bloody band members and twice as many in the bloody credits, no one could prove a bloody thing anyway, back then you weren't a band, you were a hobby. Pride and ego, my lad, pride and ego".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top