Is the current Iron Maiden lineup band's "classic" lineup?

?

  • Total voters
    43
Plus the quantity and quality of music, artwork etc from that era (83-89) in such a short time is why I voted in the No option.
Martin Birch is another reason for my vote.
 
I never realised the term "classic" was so subjective! So I went to https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/classic for a more objective definition and got this:
Judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind.
Click to expand...
So I suppose it's significant who's doing the judging: the viewpoint of the fans who stayed with the band throughout, and thus saw the whole thing develop (the "inner circle" if you like) may well be different from that of critics, journalists, fans who only like the early stuff and "not-specifically-fans" who just like a few songs.
 
Black Abyss Babe said:
No-one has said it here, (possibly because this is a serious fan forum :halo:) but they're all over Facebook and other forums with this sort of stuff.
Click to expand...
Then that is not a tiny minority. And look purely at the votes, not the arguments, that is not tiny either. Basically, a huge NO.
 
I still think the eighties where the classic period, for most people it's songs and artwork from this period that first comes to mind when they hear the name. Covers like killer and the trooper are a bigger part in the "brand" iron maiden than newer artwork and songwise I think it's the same. Of course this is because it was those things that where there in the beginning when they first got big and that is what's stuck in people's heads. It doesn't have that much to do with what is the best line up but rather which is the most iconic, which will people think of when they hear the name. It's no surprise they called their beer the trooper and not the wickerman, I'd say. Still think the reunion era is better and more interesting though.
 
Forostar said:
Then that is not a tiny minority.
Click to expand...
It depends on what group those people are considered to represent. These folks in the main seem to be of the "Maiden-won't-play-the-soundtrack-to-my-mid-life-crisis-boo-bloody-hoo" brigade - more concerned with their own "classic era" than Maidens ...

I don't think anyone is disputing that Maiden had a classic line-up in the '80s. Well it's back again now, only one better . Interesting aside from Blaze: when he first heard that Bruce and Adrian were returning his initial response was "OK, it's like a line-up thing, the classic line-up". Blaze did not apparently consider the continued presence of Janick to negate the point that the "classic line-up" from the '80s was being re-assembled.

It all turns on how you interpret the term "classic" and what it is "classic of" - is it Maiden overall? Or rock/metal in general? Or something else entirely? And is only the recorded output being considered or are other achievements also being taken into account?
 
In terms of exposure, this lineup is enjoying far more reverence and respect than 80s era Maiden ever did. 80s Maiden lurked in the shadows; while they had occasionally exposure on MTV, they were very much an underground phenomenon (albeit a very successful one).

In terms of perceived quality... That's obviously subjective, but I will say that Seventh Son remains the most notable "punctuation mark" in the band's history. Everything before it is generally embraced and everything after it generates more contentious opinions.
 
The progressive lineup from 99 to this day is the most important one:

You couldn't have seen Bruce on stage with Ian Anderson before 99.

They won their first Grammy post 99.

They had three top ten albums in the US post 99 and before that they had none.

Their popularity spread all over the world post 99, after that they have played gigs in over ten new countries. In addition they made their record of having a number one album in 28 countries at the same time.

They have had their longest and most experimental albums and songs post 99.

Bruce claims that he sounds better than ever after treatments and they he will continue with the band for at least another five years.
 
It is all a matter of perspective of course, but I’ll be one of those annoying “I preferred it in the 80s” folks. For me, the classic line up has to be Murray, Smith, Dickinson, Harris and McBrain. The band were at their most creative, energetic and at the peak of their songwriting powers, which is why so many of those songs still frequent the setlists. IMO the band have never gone beyond those heights, although they may have matched them in parts. The addition of YG offers more scope in the live sound and interpretation of songs but the longevity of the current line-up doesn’t surpass the inventiveness, attitude and theatre of the 80s recorded and live output. Maybe it was the lack of social media etc, but in those days the records and shows were events with a sense of palpable excitement. It can be just as good now, but it can feel more like Maiden by Numbers sometimes. Won’t stop me going to the shows though!
 
Also the 1st phase 80-99 and the 2nd phase are already equally long periods of time, 18 years. Soon the "new" phase will be older in years.
 
I honestly prefer the classic Maiden records, but I consider the "real" line-up to be the one we have now. Much as I like Blaze, without Bruce and Adrian, the stage always feels weird in live stuff, and that's also the case in just about anything prior to the Dickinson - Harris - Smith - Murray - Gers - McBrain lineup.
 
Does a football club have only one "classic period". No it doesn't, it has multiple. I vote yes, because this is the classic Maiden together with the Maiden of the 1980s.
 
For me, classic and current can not be in the same sentence. I don't think you can consider something classic while it's still happening or is currently underway. One day, in distant future I hope, when Maiden call it quits can we blab what period was classic.
 
That's also what I was aiming at, albeit I used wrong temporal syntax - this will be classic Maiden iteration, together with the 1980s.
 
Spambot said:
For me, classic and current can not be in the same sentence. I don't think you can consider something classic while it's still happening or is currently underway. One day, in distant future I hope, when Maiden call it quits can we blab what period was classic.
Click to expand...
And it will be this one :bigsmile:.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top