Iron Maiden studio album 17 rumours and speculations

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Album Productions

I high key disagree with the sentiment that TBOS has the worst production of the reunion albums. In fact, I think it’s up there with BNW’s. AMOLAD sounds fine but slightly stale; TFF sounds good instrumentally, but the vocals sound weird as hell; and DOD is compressed to all hell — worst production job on any Maiden record. TBOS actually sounds prehistoric in a good way. It fits the vibes and the imagery of the record. The guitars sound warm, the drums are titanic yet tribal, and Bruce’s voice sounds great in the mix. It’s a mammoth record with a mammoth sound. Not perfect, but pretty damn great.
 
Diesel 11 said:
Re: Album Productions

I high key disagree with the sentiment that TBOS has the worst production of the reunion albums. In fact, I think it’s up there with BNW’s. AMOLAD sounds fine but slightly stale; TFF sounds good instrumentally, but the vocals sound weird as hell; and DOD is compressed to all hell — worst production job on any Maiden record. TBOS actually sounds prehistoric in a good way. It fits the vibes and the imagery of the record. The guitars sound warm, the drums are titanic yet tribal, and Bruce’s voice sounds great in the mix. It’s a mammoth record with a mammoth sound. Not perfect, but pretty damn great.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you say. The problem with DOD is the mastering not the production though. As far as the production goes, it is miles better than The X Factor or Virtual XI, the absolute nadir of Maiden albums in every aspect (songwriting, production, artwork… What a turd!).
 
Last edited:
TBOS CD is horribly, horribly compressed. The headroom is extremely tiny. The vinyl is a lot better though, around 10 dB more dynamic with some actual attack on the drums, since they aren't limited to shit.
Regarding DoD, the remaster is a lot better, it sounds good (and again, the vinyl is a bit more dynamic). What I've always liked about the record is how they went for a fairly old school drum sound, with a a heavy dose of of nicely compressed room mikes, in contrast to say, BNW with it's heavy leaning towards sample reinforcements.
 
Last edited:
GhostofCain said:
I agree with most of what you say. The problem with DOD is the mastering not the production though.
Click to expand...
I would disagree with this. The mud on DOD comes from the production and mix more than the mastering. You can tell on the remaster where they had to use EQ to emphasize certain instruments in the muddier sections at the expense of others to create some differentiation. If the mix was already good and the mastering had just overcompressed things, you wouldn’t have to play EQ games to change the levels of different instruments to artificially create more clarity.
 
Honestly I like KS produced albums sound. They are quite different to the 80s, like people said here...they began in 2000 when the loudness war was beginning. They have more weight and body to them then the 80s stuff...however there is more differentiation and detail in the 80s with just 2 guitars. I always felt its a difficult thing for ks to mix 3 heavy guitars. And keep them apparent. At times things get lost, like the bridge lesd melody in eternity should fail, but for the most part, it's a solid sonic direction for maiden.
 
Hoping the new album beats the album below:
1. Wickerman
2. Rainmaker
3. These Colors Don't run
4. Ghost of the Navigator
5. Brave New World
6. Dance of Death
7. The Book of Souls
8. For the greater good of god
9. Paschendale
10. The Legacy
 
I can totally stand the debut's sound and mixing. Low budget, not Birch yet, first LP recording experience... All the excuses you want.

TBOS has some undebatable problems, come on. If you have ears, you can't define good the shit that happens during the intro of When The River Runs Deep. Guitars sounds are TOTALLY fucked up. Awful sound. It's the only album that I feel they haven't even re-listened to after recording it, in some parts... Some points are embarassing, for a band like them, and with all the possibilities, the funds and the experience they had in late 2014, for fuck's sake. And the strange thing is that TBOS has some GREAT moments, too, mixing and production-wise. But WTRRD guitar sounds are a fuckin' nightmare to listen to. Highs and Lows that make me rate the album as my least favourite among the 5 new era efforts.

Even though it has got TBOS, IESF, DOG and EOTC, which I think are the album's highlights. Wonderful songs and among the best they've ever written over the last 30 years.

To me, it has (among) the best songs but also the worst ones of all the post-1999 catalogue.

Hope IM17 is more cohesive, overall. Like AMOLAD, BNW, TFF or even DOD.

Never had problems with any other album's sound and mixing, apart from that.
 
Last edited:
Fabio Maiden said:
Awful sound. It's the only album that I feel they haven't even re-listened to after recording it, in some parts
Click to expand...

You're mixing mixing and musical quality of stems. If you have a guitarist that's against "Pro Tools manipulation", and doesn't want to spend an afternoon doing takes for a single solo, yes that happens and we've discussed it when the album was released. That doesn't mean Maiden is 'all live', they don't clicktrack, they don't autotune, they don't edit solos, but they do copy paste. There is a dud note somewhere in Speed Of Light, copy pasted. Dud notes don't introduce tension such as bad notes, but their frequency signature is across the board because of the harmonics involved in a mispress. That temporarily slightly fucks up the mix, just like Gers does when he throws his guitar around or does his kung fu shenanigans (Sanctuary at Rock in Rio).

There's nothing wrong with TBOS mix, production, it's well done when you take source ingredients into the account. This is where people miss Martin Birch and his thorough approach in recording parts such as vocals or solos.
 
koponto said:
Next summer's going to be an album tour mixed with Legacy tracks:

Legacy of the Feast 2022

You heard it here first.
Click to expand...


Well thats exactly right, just because it may have the Legacy name doesnt mean they cant completely re do the set, and heavily change what the stage set looks like.
 
Ironalice said:
Well thats exactly right, just because it may have the Legacy name doesnt mean they cant completely re do the set, and heavily change what the stage set looks like.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's anything contractual barring Maiden from changing the live set in any arbitrary point. There is financial feasibility to be accounted for when you change the project mid-term, nothing more. But in these times that option is perfectly valid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top