GhostofCain
Ancient Mariner
The debut album. Killers might sound miles better, but the songs are not as good for the most part as those off Iron Maiden. I affectionally call the album Fillers. 
Iron Maiden vs. Killers?
- Thread starter WildRanger
- Start date
Iron Lurker
Ancient Mariner
The Paul albums are the first Maiden albums I ever heard back in 1981 so they hold a special place in my heart. But no way, no way......are they better than anything else Bruce/Maiden have done.
Kalata
Out of the Silent Planet
For me it is the debut album - it has better songs, some of them are epochal for the band and the music genre and I don't have a problem with the production - great raw sound that shows the fierceness of these times.
Killers has a great production and vibe, but it is not as strong as the debut album.
Killers has a great production and vibe, but it is not as strong as the debut album.
Last edited:
Number 6
Ancient Mariner
Now, I would agree with that on Killers, but wouldn't go that far regarding the debut. I rank it higher than at least 7 other Maiden albums, 5 of those with Bruce (including The Number of the Beast).
Iron Lurker
Ancient Mariner
Meh, guess it was a gut reaction post. What I really took it as is Paul is better than Bruce (blasphemy!) I rank Killers higher than the debut. I love most of the songs on the debut (and Phantom is one of my fav Maiden songs ever) but I never cared for the production.
Diesel 11
As you scream into the web of silence...
The only albums worse than the debut are TFF and Killers itself. But that’s mainly because the rest of the material is so strong. And I swear there’s no Bruce / Adrian bias because the Blaze era is one of my favorite periods in the band’s history.
Confeos
Game time started.
I'd rank the debut over both No Prayer and VXI (and maybe Fear of the Dark, depending on my mood). So, no Bruce-bias there 
I think TFF is the weakest reunion era-album, but I enjoy it more than the debut, and Killers, well... just check which one I voted for in this poll.
I think TFF is the weakest reunion era-album, but I enjoy it more than the debut, and Killers, well... just check which one I voted for in this poll.
permanenteddie
Educated Fool
Based on the quality of songs only, the debut album all the way.
Killers is one of their weakest releases, despite the great production and the arrival of H, with too much filler and among the worst songs they've done. Drifter is just atrocious, Another Life, Innocent Exile are very basic metal songs (we can easily see that these are among the very first songs Steve wrote because they sound so unfinished and naïve). Murders in the rue Morgue and Killers have great intros but then once the songs get started they quickly become so repetitive, its hard to believe they're less than 5 minutes long! The only two great songs here are Wrathchild (I'll add The ides of March as its intro) and Purgatory.
I remember an interview when reviewing all Maiden albums until FOTD (when the albums were re-released in 1998), Steve said that the debut album was kind of a best-of of their first 4 years. And since there's only 3 new songs on Killers, does it mean that after the best with IM, we got the...rest with Killers? Yeah, I kinda believe we did!
Killers is one of their weakest releases, despite the great production and the arrival of H, with too much filler and among the worst songs they've done. Drifter is just atrocious, Another Life, Innocent Exile are very basic metal songs (we can easily see that these are among the very first songs Steve wrote because they sound so unfinished and naïve). Murders in the rue Morgue and Killers have great intros but then once the songs get started they quickly become so repetitive, its hard to believe they're less than 5 minutes long! The only two great songs here are Wrathchild (I'll add The ides of March as its intro) and Purgatory.
I remember an interview when reviewing all Maiden albums until FOTD (when the albums were re-released in 1998), Steve said that the debut album was kind of a best-of of their first 4 years. And since there's only 3 new songs on Killers, does it mean that after the best with IM, we got the...rest with Killers? Yeah, I kinda believe we did!
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Hard to read all this lack of appreciation for the good things on the Killers album.
The poster above also does not care about Genghis Khan which is signature Maiden. Sublime instrumental with an excellent last one and a half minute. That bass line, those different riffs by Dave and Adrian and on top of that that cool lead by Adrian. This groove sounds like a preview of Hallowed Be Thy Name. Clive is really shining on this. Probably my favourite ending of all Maiden songs, and by far my favourite song from Killers.
Steve Harris in the interview with John Stix, made in 1983
Interviewer John Stix: "Genghis Khan is the second instrumental on Killers. The sharp break in the B section is like shifting gears without a clutch."
Steve: "That freaked out our producer as well. It was sort of a change at right angles. We really liked that element of surprise. This was another song where there could have been a vocal melody on top, but it felt good as an instrumental. A vocal would have cluttered it up. Originally it was written to depict the feeling and sound of Genghis Khan's army going to battle".
John Stix: "There are no solos"
Steve: "It wasn't a conscious thing, but it worked out that way. It felt better not to have any guitar solos on this track".
The poster above also does not care about Genghis Khan which is signature Maiden. Sublime instrumental with an excellent last one and a half minute. That bass line, those different riffs by Dave and Adrian and on top of that that cool lead by Adrian. This groove sounds like a preview of Hallowed Be Thy Name. Clive is really shining on this. Probably my favourite ending of all Maiden songs, and by far my favourite song from Killers.
Steve Harris in the interview with John Stix, made in 1983
Interviewer John Stix: "Genghis Khan is the second instrumental on Killers. The sharp break in the B section is like shifting gears without a clutch."
Steve: "That freaked out our producer as well. It was sort of a change at right angles. We really liked that element of surprise. This was another song where there could have been a vocal melody on top, but it felt good as an instrumental. A vocal would have cluttered it up. Originally it was written to depict the feeling and sound of Genghis Khan's army going to battle".
John Stix: "There are no solos"
Steve: "It wasn't a conscious thing, but it worked out that way. It felt better not to have any guitar solos on this track".
Last edited:
permanenteddie
Educated Fool
Hi Foro, just my opinion here! As for Genghis Khan, I must say it's quite good, specially the part with the pre-HBTN riff but it is between two songs that imo are among their weakest, so I tend to forget it, not that I don't care
.This interview with John Stix you quote brings me back some nice - and old - memories, first time I read it was in a guitar tab book i bought in the mid 90's, it was cool because if I remember correctly Steve speaks about almost each one of the songs of the first four albums. What I won't forget is that I was exptecing this book to include detailed tabs for their first four albums...but actually there were only some chords and a few melodies per song, no solos or anything else, so I felt quite frustrated
