IRON MAIDEN ALBUM RANKING: TOP THREE REVEALED

Finally, I love how this album really bridges the gap between classic and future Maiden, best evidenced in “Afraid to Shoot Strangers”. It continues the “Infinite Dreams” path

What?

If these songs are on the same path and if somehow it started with Infinite Dreams and is continued on Strangers then what we have here is the Yellow Brick Road descending into a single track foot path of churned up horse shit.

I'm always open to new and interesting information and would gladly read some detail about this path you speak of.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Jer
I like Fear of the Dark enough, although it's still my third least favourite Iron Maiden album. Looking at the other recent posts, it seems I might be the biggest fan of the title track here.

In any case, I think Fear of the Dark has a lot more listenable stuff than what The X Factor does. With any luck, The X Factor will go next. It does seem like Dance of Death has slipped under the radar too. I, uhhh, happen to rank Killers above all those albums so I'm hoping it's not next in line...
 
FOTD is criminally underrated here.

The title track, Afraid To Shoot Strangers, Judas Be My Guide, and Wasting Love are all fantastic. From Here To Eternity, Chains Of Misery, and even Weekend Warrior are perfectly serviceable hard rock songs - different, to be sure, but not bad. That's over half the album accounted for, and I think The Fugitive is a decent deep cut too.

Controversially I think Be Quick Or Be Dead is the worst song here, because the raspiness is turned up so high it sounds like Bruce is vomiting instead of singing in places.
 
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
9:
10:
11:
12:
13:
14: Killers
15: FEAR OF THE DARK
16: VIRTUAL XI
17: NO PRAYER FOR THE DYING

Highest score: 11 points (@Cosmiceddie)
Lowest score: 1 point (@JudasMyGuide , @Vaenyr , @Night Prowler , @KidInTheDark666 , @Diesel 11 , @MrKnickerbocker @Kalata)

Coming in at #14 is the first album that is widely considered a “classic” in casual circles. It has taken a beating around here which is understandable - it lacks the more progressive side of Maiden that has become dominant in their music and contains quite a few lyrical shortcomings. I also think Maiden has distanced themselves quite a bit from their NWOBHM roots since the Early Days tour in 2005 (have they played anything off that album besides Wrathchild since then?). A lot of folks who rated Killers low are younger fans who may have come on board more recently, with the modern progressive Maiden in full swing (four albums later) and Di’Anno era mostly ignored live. We have definitely seen survivor results where popular opinion reflects what the band is doing live (see the heavy SIT presence in the last top ten). Since Maiden has gone so deep into the progressive side since AMOLAD, it makes sense that the fans who continue to stick with them prefer that sound while Killers gets left in the dust. It'll be interesting to see how things shake out in that regard when Maiden is finished and there is a more holistic assessment of the catalog.
 
Killers is a legendary album, regardless of the musical content and one's taste. The cover is iconic. The production leagues ahead compared to the debut. At the same time it is the closest thing to a collection of fillers, considering the fact that Steve chose most of the best songs for the debut and Killers received what was left. It's also borderline unfinished, considering how many songs only have one or two verses which get repeated again and again.

Personally it's not my style at all and if it weren't a Maiden album I would never listen to it. The title track, the instrumentals, and Purgatory (Steel Prophet's cover, linked below, being the definitive version for me) are the only truly good tracks. The rest ranges from decent to utter boring. It is by far my least favorite album and for once I can agree with an elimination :D

 
Killers is a legendary album with a legendary cover. It has a vibe like no other Maiden album, so it sits nicely in the band's discography (the production helps for that too). Most of the fans just prefer the band's later style. The album works great as a whole and the band's energy and hunger was evident. Some songs are not with that strong lyrics, verses/choruses and longer instrumental sections and if we compare the album to the rest of the discography (with the more and more ''bigger'' songs), one can see why it is rated like that. I enjoy the album.

The highs on the debut album are higher, but there are some great songs and features:

great intro that sets the mood of the album perfectly.
Wrathchild and the title track are early classics.
the instrumental is a brutally fast piece with trademark melodies for the band.
Purgatory is a melodic speed metal song.
Prodigal Son is a unique song for the band (combining acoustic and electric parts).
Murders is a typical ferocious song for that era of the band.
Drifter could have been a possible live favorite song.
Innocent Exile is one of the band's earliest songs, a good example of the band's origins.
 
Killers gets too much flak from some quarters around here. Much like No Prayer For The Dying, it’s a generally good album with a couple of great tracks and a few merely OK tracks. The production on Killers is miles ahead of the debut, the 90s albums, and most of the post-Brave-New-World reunion albums. The record also has 100% more Adrian Smith than the debut.

Yeah, some of the lyrics are dumb and/or overly repeated — but even a simplistic song like “Another Life” that just repeats the same verse three times still totally rocks, and I’d much rather listen to it than most of the Blaze-era songs, the debut, Fear Of The Dark, or Dance Of Death.
 
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
9:
10:
11:
12:
13: THE X FACTOR
14: KILLERS
15: FEAR OF THE DARK
16: VIRTUAL XI
17: NO PRAYER FOR THE DYING

Highest score: 14 (@JudasMyGuide @Confeos @MindRuler )

Lowest score: 1 (@____no5 @Spambot @Trevoire @DJMayes )

Following the survivor results very closely at this point. This was another album that did not get a lot of high scores but did benefit from not having a bandwagon against it like Killers and, also unlike Killers, had quite a few members scoring it high. 14 is a higher score than Killers' highest score of 11, and it was awarded by three members. There were also a few more that were close. On the whole, this will probably always be the "cult classic" Maiden album in the sense that it has a small pool of fans, but the people who love the album really love it. Over the years its standing has declined, likely because a lot of the moodier and more progressive qualities have been explored in a more refined way since then. I remember AMOLAD being compared to The X Factor quite a bit when it came out, which makes X Factor look more like a rough proof of concept. That it's able to topple an 80s album is pretty remarkable and it does stand by far as the most heralded album of the 90s, rightly so IMO. Of all the 90s albums it feels like the one that the band was most behind. You can tell they entered the Blaze era with a lot of optimism and confidence. Opening with a giant epic and containing some of the band's least accessible material was a bold choice and I'll always have a lot of respect for Maiden for not taking the easy route.

Context is everything. I always thought it was funny that IMC organized the Maiden timeline by listing the Blaze era as a period of "rejuvenation." The website has always been a big defender of the Blaze era, but to me it seemed like a bit disingenuous to describe it as a period of rejuvenation when they were playing to middling audiences in the USA and the two albums were controversial, to say the least. At the same time though, I can see how some fans at the time would have been thrilled to see Maiden moving away from the hard rock/back to roots stylings of the previous two albums and trying some new directions. It's also worth noting that Maiden did see their audiences grow in some markets in the late 90s, primarily in South America. Almost 30 years later, the Blaze era fits pretty awkwardly in the Maiden discography. I'm not sure anyone would've predicted back in 1999 that this new Maiden lineup would go on to produce six more albums. I strongly believe that every time Maiden releases a new album, The X Factor becomes less and less relevant in the grand scheme of the catalog. They've revisited that moody progressive sound so many times on the newer albums, especially on Senjutsu, that the novelty of The X Factor has decreased some.
 
TXF is a special album in the band's discography. The mood it has is unique (the intros and Blaze's vocals really help for that). It's more or less the start of their ''progressive'' era and it's the most thought-out album in the 90's (and in general). The album has no weak songs imo.

Opening with a long, dark, heavy and melodic epic fits the album the best. Sign Of The Cross is a fantastic classic. While the closing song has unique parts and instrumental section for the band. Another great choice. The listener is in for a journey. We have the traditional Maiden songs (Man On The Edge and The Edge Of Darkness), a potential live favorite in the form of Lord Of The Flies, a song with a classic Maiden instrumental section (Judgement Of Heaven), a moody ballad (2 A.M.), a song with more acoustic & bass parts plus the classic gallop (Fortunes Of War), a song with not that typical riffs and structure for the band (Blood On The World's Hands), a song that shows their ''progressive'' side (The Aftermath) and one ''fun'' song that wants to serve its purpose on the album like Trooper (Look For The Truth). I mean, the album has something for everyone. Some of the songs and Blaze's vocals probably can't compare with the band's classic material, but not many bands can release such album that has a great impact on the listener. The album is full of interesting music and ideas. The fans and the metal world didn't appreciate it at the time, but now it gets the recognition it deserves.
 
I always thought it was funny that IMC organized the Maiden timeline by listing the Blaze era as a period of "rejuvenation." The website has always been a big defender of the Blaze era, but to me it seemed like a bit disingenuous to describe it as a period of rejuvenation when they were playing to middling audiences in the USA and the two albums were controversial, to say the least. At the same time though, I can see how some fans at the time would have been thrilled to see Maiden moving away from the hard rock/back to roots stylings of the previous two albums and trying some new directions. It's also worth noting that Maiden did see their audiences grow in some markets in the late 90s, primarily in South America. Almost 30 years later, the Blaze era fits pretty awkwardly in the Maiden discography. I'm not sure anyone would've predicted back in 1999 that this new Maiden lineup would go on to produce six more albums. I strongly believe that every time Maiden releases a new album, The X Factor becomes less and less relevant in the grand scheme of the catalog. They've revisited that moody progressive sound so many times on the newer albums, especially on Senjutsu, that the novelty of The X Factor has decreased some.
I really like this contextualization. It makes me think the time might be coming to have a deeper discussion on how to view the Blaze era. Because I still do believe that without the Blaze time, there was going to be no Iron Maiden to bring back together in 1999. I know some people will say "oh it sucks" but the band continues to talk about that time fairly proudly, including playing songs from those albums in their greatest Greatest Hits tour.
 
That it's able to topple an 80s album is pretty remarkable
Yes and no. Yes, because the 80's material is so strong and no, because the quality and the mood are on point.
Context is everything. I always thought it was funny that IMC organized the Maiden timeline by listing the Blaze era as a period of "rejuvenation." The website has always been a big defender of the Blaze era, but to me it seemed like a bit disingenuous to describe it as a period of rejuvenation when they were playing to middling audiences in the USA and the two albums were controversial, to say the least. At the same time though, I can see how some fans at the time would have been thrilled to see Maiden moving away from the hard rock/back to roots stylings of the previous two albums and trying some new directions. It's also worth noting that Maiden did see their audiences grow in some markets in the late 90s, primarily in South America. Almost 30 years later, the Blaze era fits pretty awkwardly in the Maiden discography. I'm not sure anyone would've predicted back in 1999 that this new Maiden lineup would go on to produce six more albums.
I agree. The ''rejuvenation'' is exactly because they abandoned the hard rock/back to the roots style of the previous two albums and started making longer and complex songs again. Like they should have continue to do after SSOASS.
I strongly believe that every time Maiden releases a new album, The X Factor becomes less and less relevant in the grand scheme of the catalog. They've revisited that moody progressive sound so many times on the newer albums, especially on Senjutsu, that the novelty of The X Factor has decreased some.
I guess we can say that. But only AMOLAD (and maybe SJ) can match its unique approach.
I really like this contextualization. It makes me think the time might be coming to have a deeper discussion on how to view the Blaze era. Because I still do believe that without the Blaze time, there was going to be no Iron Maiden to bring back together in 1999. I know some people will say "oh it sucks" but the band continues to talk about that time fairly proudly, including playing songs from those albums in their greatest Greatest Hits tour.
More or less, this.^
 
I know some people will say "oh it sucks" but the band continues to talk about that time fairly proudly, including playing songs from those albums in their greatest Greatest Hits tour.
I think that has much more to do with Steve's ego than with any broader statement about the quality of the work. Maiden is his band, so of course it had to be just as good without Bruce and Adrian there. Anything else is fake news!

When Bruce and Adrian rejoined, Steve of course had them go through the motions of playing stuff like "Man On The Edge" and "Lord Of The Flies" and "Futureal" live, because those songs must be just as good as anything else from the band's catalog! And yet all of that fell away quickly, because the proof is in the pudding, and those songs just don't hold up against their peers.

I don't think you'll hear Maiden play any Blaze-era songs other than "Sign Of The Cross" and "The Clansman" ever again. Those appear to be the fan-consensus "best songs" from their respective albums, so they get token appearances, but nothing else passes muster.
 
I think that has much more to do with Steve's ego than with any broader statement about the quality of the work. Maiden is his band, so of course it had to be just as good without Bruce and Adrian there. Anything else is fake news!

When Bruce and Adrian rejoined, Steve of course had them go through the motions of playing stuff like "Man On The Edge" and "Lord Of The Flies" and "Futureal" live, because those songs must be just as good as anything else from the band's catalog! And yet all of that fell away quickly, because the proof is in the pudding, and those songs just don't hold up against their peers.

I don't think you'll hear Maiden play any Blaze-era songs other than "Sign Of The Cross" and "The Clansman" ever again. Those appear to be the fan-consensus "best songs" from their respective albums, so they get token appearances, but nothing else passes muster.
I think Steve (and Janick) really believe in the album and genuinely like it. The material is good. But it's hard to compete with the classics. When Bruce and Adrian rejoined, Maiden played songs from that era because they respect it (like they did in 1982 with Bruce). After that, songs from those albums (the 90's overall) were not played at all because the band wanted to play the classics, plus new albums and History tours. The fact that these albums have been labeled as the band's ''weakest'' also plays a role in this. I agree about Sign and Clansman, but I wouldn't say that though. Not with certainty.
 
I really like this contextualization. It makes me think the time might be coming to have a deeper discussion on how to view the Blaze era. Because I still do believe that without the Blaze time, there was going to be no Iron Maiden to bring back together in 1999. I know some people will say "oh it sucks" but the band continues to talk about that time fairly proudly, including playing songs from those albums in their greatest Greatest Hits tour.
Steve is clearly still proud of the material. His contributions to Senjutsu also made it more evident that his writing style hasn’t changed all that much. I’m sure there’s a part of him that would’ve preferred to continue playing in clubs with Blaze - I guess that’s kinda what British Lion is.

It’s also noteworthy that Bruce has been a big proponent of playing those songs live. It seems like the inclusion of two Blaze era songs on Legacy was his idea. That they moved Clansman to the encore for the final leg showed a lot of confidence and it did seem to go down as a big crowd pleaser most of the time.
 
I think Man on the Edge is easily as strong as some of their Bruce hits and could see success as a live song again. I also think a song like Blood on the World's Hands could work live again.

But I also don't expect them to show up again because they would never be high enough priority over other songs.
 
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
9:
10:
11:
12: IRON MAIDEN
13: THE X FACTOR
14: KILLERS
15: FEAR OF THE DARK
16: VIRTUAL XI
17: NO PRAYER FOR THE DYING

Highest Score: 13 (@DJ James)

Lowest score: 2 (@JudasMyGuide @Confeos @Vaenyr )

This is the first of three albums that was not anybody's #1 or #17 pick, understandably landing just outside the middle range. It just doesn't seem like an album that many people care about one way or the other.

I would consider this result (and Killers' low performance to some extent) a bit of an upset. Every reunion album outperforming both Di'Anno albums is pretty impressive and really goes to show how popular that period is on the forum currently. I do think it is a pretty low placement. An album with Phantom of the Opera, Remember Tomorrow, and Transylvania shouldn't really be placing below albums like Dance of Death and Book of Souls that are really heavy on fillers IMO. I know the shorter rockers are not in vogue right now, but tracks like Running Free and Prowler are great songs. The debut album represents the band's best material at that time and the fire of young musicians who want to prove themselves.

As I mentioned with Killers, I wonder how much the low placement of these albums has to do with Maiden largely ignoring the period live. I wonder where these albums would have landed after the Early Days tour, for example. Would Dance of Death still outperform both of them? With that being said though, while the reunion albums outdid all 90s albums and both Di'Anno albums, I wouldn't say the reunion era as a whole performed that well. But we'll get to that soon.
 
That's about where I rank it, but I agree it's pretty neck and neck with reunion albums such as DOD, Senjutsu or TFF. Book of Souls (and certainly BNW and AMOLAD) are definitely superior, IMO.

I definitely agree with the general consensus that the debut is better than Killers.
 
Back
Top