Iron Maiden News, Links, and Interviews

Ruflux said:
Compare this to Hammersmith Odeon '82 and it's like a different band. Clive is ridiculously solid on that, and comparing Bruce at his early years peak to Paul at not even his best obviously isn't even fair to the latter.
Click to expand...

Yea I said as much - it is like a different band. We agree. The Bruce part. Disagree.
 
harrisdevot said:
I'm totally unable to understand these figures, except I'm surprised by the general trend.
Click to expand...

Liability is a deferred payment, an obligation to pay at a later date.

Not checked - e.g. my quick opinion on the numbers - Maiden Touring LLC has been incorporated in 2012 and in 2014 they had 13M assets with 5M liabilities. Those liabilities have probably been injected from main company (Maiden LLC) so that Touring company has enough liquid assets for operation, to pay stuff for touring in advance for example. Between 2014 and 2016 the company repaid out liabilities from their current assets, bringing net worth down to 2M (total assets 3M, 1M left in liabilities), and the company has profited ever since and repaid their liabilities almost fully, leaving just 7 thousand quid there.

So they have about 7.6M in assets and that's total worth, clean money of the LLC right now. If they would pay themselves out now, after 19% tax it would leave about 1 Million pound per band member.
 
Zare said:
Liability is a deferred payment, an obligation to pay at a later date.

Not checked - e.g. my quick opinion on the numbers - Maiden Touring LLC has been incorporated in 2012 and in 2014 they had 13M assets with 5M liabilities. Those liabilities have probably been injected from main company (Maiden LLC) so that Touring company has enough liquid assets for operation, to pay stuff for touring in advance for example. Between 2014 and 2016 the company repaid out liabilities from their current assets, bringing net worth down to 2M (total assets 3M, 1M left in liabilities), and the company has profited ever since and repaid their liabilities almost fully, leaving just 7 thousand quid there.

So they have about 7.6M in assets and that's total worth, clean money of the LLC right now. If they would pay themselves out now, after 19% tax it would leave about 1 Million pound per band member.
Click to expand...

Would the drop correspond to the fact they could not tour in 2015?
 
Possibly, I'm not a finance guy and that chart doesn't look quite revealing. That site also charges for extras, I found their published documents on another catalogue but nothing extra there.
 
Kalata said:
:nonono:..... Di'Anno will never have the vocal abilities and range of Bruce.
Click to expand...

And Dickinson will never have the style nor the swagger on stage as Di'Anno. Feel free to compare the Rainbow gig and now the Beat Club to the Hammersmith Odeon for free points.
 
Style? Halford copycat. Dickinson is at least creative in his fashion fails. And I'd rather be a Renaissance twat than a petty criminal and a junkie.
 
Well, pal, at least Bruce got better with age. His solo work in the ‘90s is possibly better than anything he ever did with Maiden.

‘90s Di’Anno, however, is the funniest stuff I’ve ever heard, and I don’t mean this in a good way.
 
I agree, Di'Anno took the washed up cop route in the 00's - but not the 90's. Not entirely at least.
Check out his Killers band albums perchance, buddy. Good stuff.

Di'Anno basically did what Bayley did. At least for the first part of his outside Maiden career, e.g. the Di'Anno album, the Battlezone records , the Killers albums.
This failed miserably commercially. Much like Blaze.
Then Di'Anno did the washed up cop routine and re-hashed the Maiden years relentlessly. To the point of overload.
I know many Maiden fans think he's a joke now, but he deserves just a little credit for the early days.

O yea, and I know it's popular to say Dickinson is like fine wine and gets better with age. Again, I disagree.
 
Last edited:
John Silver said:
Check out his Killers band albums perchance, buddy. Good stuff.
Click to expand...
I haven’t heard the albums in full (dreading the day I do) but I did listen to certain songs. Production is great, the band sounds awesome... and then Di’Anno just shits over everything.
 
I did give Blaze credit. You saw my ratings for Silicon Messiah - so where did that come from?

Fair enough, you don't like Di'Anno. Seems pretty common round here.
 
John Silver said:
I did give Blaze credit. You saw my ratings for Silicon Messiah - so where did that come from?
Click to expand...
Sorry, that was aimed at the certain members who actually dislike Blaze, not you. I just messed up with connecting it, my bad.

John Silver said:
Fair enough, you don't like Di'Anno. Seems pretty common round here.
Click to expand...
It’s not so much that I outright dislike him - his music is still mostly listenable and I don’t exactly mind when it comes on - but I definitely don’t think his Maiden years were the best ones of the band.
 
I wouldn't say that Maidens best years were with Di'Anno but for me he is certainly the most 'important' ex-member of the band. I find myself goin through regular Early Days phases were only Paul stuff will do. Don't know much of his post-Maiden stuff but, for me, the early stuff (particularly live) is the heart and soul of Iron Maiden; the ferocious playing, the energy and the swagger of Di'Anno. The fact that he was an actual nut job makes it all the more real.

Bruce is obviously a more skilled vocalist and song writer but Paul had a certain edge that Bruce doesn't. I don't think about which era is 'better' but I certainly think Paul does most of his eras songs better than Bruce.

I wouldn't say that the Real Maiden ended in 1982 but they certainly were a different animal with Di'Anno on board. And what an animal they were.

And when he was in Maiden, Paul never sang on anything as pish as Weekend Warrior or Age of Innocence. We will all go to our graves with this knowledge.
 
You guys are nuts. It's pretty obvious who is the best Iron Maiden singer.

The one and only Dennis Wilcock, of course.
 
Niall Kielt said:
I wouldn't say that the Real Maiden ended in 1982 but they certainly were a different animal with Di'Anno on board. And what an animal they were.
Click to expand...
I guess if I was one of those people who really loved the pre-Smith/Birch sound, then yeah, I'd be upset when Paul left. But Maiden was evolving fast in 1980-82. The band that they were on the Soundhouse Tapes wasn't even close to the band they were a year later when Iron Maiden came out, and Killers was another different sound altogether. I think that's one of the things that hampers Killers, it has a collection of songs that are obvious throwbacks to the era before Iron Maiden but with a much better lead guitarist in Adrian Smith and a producer miles ahead of anyone making NWOBHM albums at the time (compare the second albums by Saxon and Angel Witch, or even 1980 Motörhead, against the sound on Killers). The old songwriting and the old vocals were holding them back. There's a reason why songs like Invaders and Gangland are poorly received on The Number of the Beast, and it's because they still sound like that late 70s Maiden that, quite frankly, Steve & company had surpassed well before.

I agree that Paul was important to the growth of Iron Maiden, but he was like Moses. He led them on the way, but never got to the Promised Land.
 
Niall Kielt said:
And when he was in Maiden, Paul never sang on anything as pish as Weekend Warrior or Age of Innocence.
Click to expand...

One could argue he only sang on two albums and did 'Charlotte the Harlot', which to me is one of the lowest points (definitely lyrically) of Maiden's career.

That being said, Paul was a great fit for early Maiden.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top