Iron Maiden & Killers

EvilThing

Prowler
Am I the only person who never listens to these albums? It's not because I don't like the material because I love it. I love all of the live versions with Bruce but I just don't like the way Dianno's voice sounds with Maiden. It just doesn't work for me. It's way too punkish. To be honest, I prefer Blaze to Dianno. At least blaze could pull of the sort of soaring opreatic vocals that work so well with Maiden, albeit not as good as Bruce.
 
It's just a bad line up for me. I've always wondered what it would have been like is Bruce, Adrian, and Nicko had been in the band from the beginning.
 
Try this: Get yourself a decent used vinyl copy of Iron Maiden. Get home after a long, crap day. At about eight or nine pm, put on the record, crank up the volume and picture yourself being on an East End stage in 1980.

That's how I got into the album, anyway.
 
I don't have Killers yet, but I love Iron Maiden and listen to it on a regular basis. It's great for when I'm in the mood for something not so polished and refined, but with an edge to it. Paul is certainly no Bruce Dickinson, and really hasn't done much notable since Killers, but his voice works for those songs, in my opinion better than Bruce's does. Songs like Prowler, Sanctuary, Running Free or Charlotte the Harlot aren't clean songs, they aren't polished songs. They're rough, edgy songs, and Paul captures their spirit perfectly.

When Bruce performs songs from this era live, it's really hit or miss. He does well on Phantom of the Opera, for example, but on Sanctuary or Running Free I find that I far prefer Paul's rough voice. Generally, I prefer to listen to the studio versions, despite the poor production of the debut.

It should be noted that there are gems to be found on the debut (once again, I don't have Killers so I cannot speak to it) even for those who dislike Paul's raspy vocals. Transylvania is quite an impressive instrumental, and Phantom of the Opera is great enough to listen to no matter who sings. Remember Tomorrow and Strange World, my 2nd and 3rd favorites on the album after Phantom, are less punky tunes where Paul utilizes a clean vocal style, and in my opinion are definite classics.

The point of the previous paragraph is that even if the punk vibe of the songs Prowler, Sanctuary, Running Free, Charlotte the Harlot and the studio version of Iron Maiden is annoying, the whole album shouldn't be tossed aside, as Phantom of the Opera, Remember Tomorrow, Strange World and Transylvania are worthy of any metal fan's consideration, and make a good addition to a playlist if that's what you're into (I listen to albums, but whatever floats your boat). Again, I cannot speak for Killers, but I'm sure it has similar gems that can be pulled out even if you dislike the style of some of the songs.

Personally, though, I think the raw style is nice for a change and enjoy listening to the debut on a regular basis.
 
The thing about it is, I like the songs, I like the music, I just don't like Dianno. He just doesn't fit Maiden to me and if my understanding of the bands history is correct, Steve thought he didn't fit either. Of course, I may very well be wrong.
 
Both are great albums, although not up there with Maiden's best. I probably rank Killers above IM. It just seems to be more consistent, with a better and more definite sound.
 
I've never had a problem with either album. I've sometimes espoused the opinion that I wish the production on Iron Maiden was better, but that's also part of the charm. Di'Anno wasn't fired because he wasn't good for the band musically, if I recall correctly - he was let go because he wasn't fitting in with the drive Steve wanted to see. He was happy to be part of an East End band that opened for Kiss. Steve Harris has never been happy with that.

Bruce joining Iron Maiden was lucky, not fate.
 
I like Iron Maiden a lot and I play it quite often. Killers never really felt right to me, as an album. There are songs that I enjoy hearing out of context, like the title song, Wrathchild and Purgatory in particular, but come to think of it, I haven't heard the whole album in years. Hmm, maybe I should.
 
They certainly have a different feel, but I like that feel. I actually thought those two albums were edgier than any other Maiden album. I listen to them a ton.
 
Quite a few gems within IM and Killers: Twilight Zone, Phantom, Transylvania, Prodigal Child, Drifter, and many others. It's really fun music and I still consider it as much Maiden as Piece of Mind or Powerslave.
 
Yeah, I would say the best songs on Iron Maiden are, in no particular order, Prowler, Sanctuary, Remember Tomorrow, Running Free, Phantom of the Opera, Transylvania, Strange World, Charlotte the Harlot and Iron Maiden.

As for Killers... take a guess.
 
I dig Killers and I like half of the debut (the rest are fillers to me). However. I rarely listen to Iron Maiden because of the piss poor production. Takes away the joy. So I listen to live renditions instead.
 
Both albums are great driving albums. It's always good to throw in a Paul or Blaze album when you wear out the Bruce albums...which in my case is often.
 
I've never understood the issue people take with Iron Maiden's production. I think the record sounds great - raw, hungry, edgy. Killers on the other hand sounds way too polished for the early Maiden sound. It took a more melodic edge and someone like Bruce to make Maiden sound good with professional production.
 
I've never understood the issue people take with Iron Maiden's production. I think the record sounds great - raw, hungry, edgy. Killers on the other hand sounds way too polished for the early Maiden sound. It took a more melodic edge and someone like Bruce to make Maiden sound good with professional production.
Same with me, I got past the production as soon as I heard the first two or three songs. It's not as bad as people make it out to be.
 
I love the self-titled debut. Those first chords of "Prowler" get me fired up. Yes, it's more raw, more "ghetto" than later Maiden -- but that's where they came from, and that's why I like it. Steve Harris vehemently denies any punk influence, but it is unmistakeable -- though the musicianship is far more technically skilled than you hear in punk. Maiden has evolved, folks. No, their debut doesn't sound like Seventh Son, but neither does Final Frontier. This is what Maiden sounded like when they took over the London metal scene. Agree with Perun that it is best heard on vinyl (though you could say that about a lot of music).

Killers has a bit more filler, but it opens very strong, and the title track is awesome. It also marks the appearance of Martin Birch, who should have his own wing in the producer hall of fame -- the list of amazing albums he has been involved in as a producer and engineer is mind-blowing. Not just the classic 80s Maiden albums, but the classic Deep Purple Mark II albums and the Dio-era Rainbow and Sabbath albums. Among my 20 favorite albums of all time, Birch was involved in about half of them. But I digress. I listen to Killers less than any of the other first seven albums, but I still think it is quite good.
 
I've never understood the issue people take with Iron Maiden's production. I think the record sounds great - raw, hungry, edgy. Killers on the other hand sounds way too polished for the early Maiden sound. It took a more melodic edge and someone like Bruce to make Maiden sound good with professional production.

The problem is that it sounds like a cheap demo with poorly EQ'd and recorded (extremely poor guitars. Way too much 2.5 khz.) guitars and vocals. High clearly audible noisefloor, clicks and pops, too little low mid on the vocals while too much 2 khz which resonates at certain notes causing my ears to go bananas - And it makes it sound a little telephone-ish. The spectral balance on the (especially the guitars) guitars and vocals, is completely unacceptable.

He went too far with the low cut filter and too easy on the 2 khz area.

The guitar sound isn't very good either .There is still room for more and they kinda need a little more low mid (and to balance, remove a slight low mid form the bass), WAYtoo much 2 khz, you can hear it ringing (which is the most sensitive frequency range of the ear and something you might want to tone down). Kill the 2,5 khz range and they would sound much better, and the vocals could benefit from having some 2.5 khz removed too.

The plate reverb sounds yucky to me (although that's what you had back in the day, if you didn't want to route the signal to a loudspeaker in the studio and mike the room) The rhytm parts aren't double tracked either and could at least have benefited from stereo miking. The drums are pretty good though, old school setup. It sounds nice as does the bass..

Killers on the other hand has an excellent production. I think you're wrong by saying that they needed Bruce to fit with great production. Killers is ace while Iron Maiden makes my ears beg for mercy.

If you guys have access to some audio processing program: Import a track, (Prowler's a good choice, especially as you hear a lone guitar in the intro) then apply an EQ (edit: preferably a parametric EQ) effect to the tracks insert or the master bus. Make the bandwith as narrow as you possibly can, the narrower the better. Then kill 2.4 khz and you'll find the album sounds much better. Take a second band and make a dip with broad bandwidth at 1,2 or so khz too and you have, within the context, a winner. The noise floor will inevitably get even higher though but whatever as well as too thick bass register for the era but that's an acceptable price.


Edit: The thing is, you won't know what you're missing until you've heard it with a good set of headphones with the EQ settings I typed. Makes it by far more listenable.
 
On the 'Early Days Part 1' DVD I recall Steve Harris saying something along the lines that he is still very proud of that first album, but was never happy with its sound.
 
Back
Top