Maiden England '88 + History Part 3 coming March 25th!

Robert Jones said:
After watching the whole thing several times now I think it's kinda bitter/sweet...

The documentary - which was the thing I was looking forward to seeing most - wasn't as good as the previous two. I did like the the focus on Somewhere in Time, I loved the humour with regards to the stage clothes, shell suits and Spinal Tap-esque set etc and it was graet to see a bit of footage from 86-87. But surely it could have had more content?! More from Martin Birch. More from Ross Halfin. Clips of the Adrian demo's he talked about. Nice to hear from Rod about the SIT cover but get Derek Riggs to go through it. I know he's a bit odd and they don't use him any more but if you're going to do something, do it properly. It all seemed a bit half arsed. More amusing than the previous 2 but not informative enough.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say it was more amusing but it indeed could have been more informative.
Robert Jones said:
I would much rather see the whole thing done the way Jim Yukich shot LAD.
Click to expand...
Nah, why do something twice? Then it'd be less unique.
Robert Jones said:
I know I'm in a minority but Donington 88 was the moment to capture that tour. A never-to-be-repeated moment.
Click to expand...
This criticism fits better when it was uttered at the end of the eighties. Although: shall I complain that Only the Good Die Young wasn't on the setlist?
Robert Jones said:
And that's my era done... As for Janick, Blaze and the lack of Mr Smith, whatever they throw out for that period will do nothing but depress me...
Click to expand...
I think it could open up some eyes (again). The period was trashed by many, and I sincerely hope Maiden won't go too much in the defense. I hope they still stand by some decisions they did back then. At least I hope the band won't purely be negative about matters, and I wish they would also talk about some positive things.
Or else it's not only going to be painful for Blaze and Janick ("we missed Adrian" comments aren't cool when you are his replacement), who gave everything they had, but it can also do some pain to the fans from that time, who did like that era.

Perhaps it was a difficult period but also special. I hope Maiden still remembers those who did support them. It's never cool when a band gives in to negative criticism (in hindsight) especially not for people who found that period special, and who supported them. Let me speak for myself: I would find that painful.
 
SixesAlltheway said:
Queen was a huge band in the 80s though, they played to crowds of 130, 000 in Brazil when Maiden was starting out at the Rainbow Theater. When Maiden did Hammersmith Odeon in 82 to a couple of thousands Queen played Milton Keynes, 65,000 people.

I think Maiden did release a lot of video stuff, compared to other bands their level they certainly did :)
Click to expand...

All true but the point I was getting at was that Maiden played enough big shows in 86 and had enough of a fan base to merit another live concert video. Whatever it had cost would have been recouped in sales. No problem! I think it was probably too early after LAD more than anything else. In hindsight it would be fantastic!
 
Forostar said:
I wouldn't say it was more amusing but it indeed could have been more informative.

Nah, why do something twice? Then it'd be less unique.

This criticism fits better when it was uttered at the end of the eighties. Although: shall I complain that Only the Good Die Young wasn't on the setlist?

I think it could open up some eyes (again). The period was trashed by many, and I sincerely hope Maiden won't go too much in the defense. I hope they still stand by some decisions they did back then. At least I hope the band won't purely be negative about matters, and I wish they would also talk about some positive things.
Or else it's not only going to be painful for Blaze and Janick ("we missed Adrian" comments aren't cool when you are his replacement), who gave everything they had, but it can also do some pain to the fans from that time, who did like that era.

Perhaps it was a difficult period but also special. I hope Maiden still remembers those who did support them. It's never cool when a band gives in to negative criticism (in hindsight) especially not for people who found that period special, and who supported them. Let me speak for myself: I would find that painful.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong. I admire anyone in any situation who carries on regardless through the more difficult times. I admire Steve's integrity. I saw Blaze in Wolfsbane several times and I loved them. Janick's writing and studio playing on Tattooed Millionaure was great too. If they had to continue and replace people it should have been with people who can truly do the job. There are singers and guitarists in Maiden covers bands who could have done the job better. It's nothing personal but it's true. They are nice guys but it ruins a legacy to hear those songs being butchered like that. I heard a version of 2 Minutes... from 1997 with Bruce and Adrian and, well, I know which version I'd wanna hear...
 
Robert Jones said:
If they had to continue and replace people it should have been with people who can truly do the job. There are singers and guitarists in Maiden covers bands who could have done the job better...
Click to expand...
If "the job" is performing Run to the Hills just the way Bruce and H would have, then you are probably right. Fortunately they didn't decide to become a cover band for themselves and instead moved forward with musical integrity. No cabaret acts here, thank you very much.
 
mckindog said:
If "the job" is performing Run to the Hills just the way Bruce and H would have, then you are probably right. Fortunately they didn't decide to become a cover band for themselves and instead moved forward with musical integrity. No cabaret acts here, thank you very much.
Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting that they did do that but even if they had it doesn't make it a cabaret act. I'm totally against the idea of 5 guys pretending to be other people. I'm just making the point that there were and are people out there who can sing better than Blaze and play better than Janick. If you're going to go out under the name Iron Maiden and play classic songs from the 80s then you should do it better than they ever did. You can defend it all you want but it sucked. You can't just say 'Oh they did it with integrity' or 'they tried their best'?! It sounded dreadful. Way off topic for this thread but nevertheless true.
 
I agree with you Robert. Not about it being dreadful (because X-Factor rocked, Virtual was terrible though and I can't imagine the band putting out one more album with Blaze after this one. No spark left!) but about the fact that they could have picked better musicians than Blaze or Janick and that it could have been just as good or perhaps even better and more "successful". They picked Blaze because he was already a friend of the band, not necessarily because they found him to be the most talented singer available. Everyone knew him from the tours with Wolfsbane so it was a safe option. They knew they could get a long together and write music.
 
Robert Jones said:
The documentary - which was the thing I was looking forward to seeing most - wasn't as good as the previous two. I did like the the focus on Somewhere in Time, I loved the humour with regards to the stage clothes, shell suits and Spinal Tap-esque set etc and it was graet to see a bit of footage from 86-87. But surely it could have had more content?! More from Martin Birch. More from Ross Halfin. Clips of the Adrian demo's he talked about. Nice to hear from Rod about the SIT cover but get Derek Riggs to go through it. I know he's a bit odd and they don't use him any more but if you're going to do something, do it properly. It all seemed a bit half arsed. More amusing than the previous 2 but not informative enough. And who the hell put the whole thing together? A 14 year old kid on Powerpoint? The small screens, that grainy film effect, the way the album covers were depicted. Seriously, really poor. The Early Days DVD, which is nearly 10 years old now, looks better than that! This era of my favourite band merits so much more...
Click to expand...

Definitively agree with you there, especially regarding the way the documentary was produced. When I started watching it, I thought the small screens were just part of the intro, but as we all know, that is not the case. There are moments in it when the background is used to show an image or something they're talking about, but most of the time it would be better to see an image of the person talking larger than 1/16 of the screen.
 
It was the 80s live stuff that sounded bad. The studio stuff, though largely bereft of anything really credible, showed ability. If Steve really thought that band were going anywhere he wouldn't have had Bruce back with open arms 5 years later. It was a tricky period for metal but they were so much more capable than songs like TAATG and Virus. Steve almost single-handedly wrote Killers which is great. Blaze should have sang in his register. When he does, he's pretty good. 'Live fast die fast' was great. I'm also sure that if Janick actually sat and learnt those parts he could do them more justice. They did none of these things and the result was, well... not good. As far as knowing Blaze and being mates, that might be relevant when looking for techs and t-shirt vendors. Not for frontmen.
 
Ranko said:
Definitively agree with you there, especially regarding the way the documentary was produced. When I started watching it, I thought the small screens were just part of the intro, but as we all know, that is not the case. There are moments in it when the background is used to show an image or something they're talking about, but most of the time it would be better to see an image of the person talking larger than 1/16 of the screen.
Click to expand...

The worst thing about it is that even the small interview screens are blurred out by effects to make it look like old camera roll films or something to that extent o_O
 
Robert Jones said:
It was the 80s live stuff that sounded bad. The studio stuff, though largely bereft of anything really credible, showed ability. If Steve really thought that band were going anywhere he wouldn't have had Bruce back with open arms 5 years later. It was a tricky period for metal but they were so much more capable than songs like TAATG and Virus. Steve almost single-handedly wrote Killers which is great. Blaze should have sang in his register. When he does, he's pretty good. 'Live fast die fast' was great. I'm also sure that if Janick actually sat and learnt those parts he could do them more justice. They did none of these things and the result was, well... not good. As far as knowing Blaze and being mates, that might be relevant when looking for techs and t-shirt vendors. Not for frontmen.
Click to expand...

I guess, apart from being mates, that Steve saw some great front man abilities in Blaze with his energy on stage when Wolsbane opened for Maiden in the early 90s. But yeah something had to give, the fans were disappearing, the Virtual tour was just...not very happening. It is amazing how everything turned on a plate the instance Bruce and H came back...Maiden must have hit the right time pocket or the world was just waiting for it to happen or something :eek: They were the biggest metal band on the planet again.

Maiden and their success around Virtual and Maiden around Brave New World - World's apart. Yet, there's only like what 1½ - 2 years between those two constellations.
 
I need a time machine to go back and find out what happened to metal in 1999 or more specifically from late 1998 to early 2000. Surely you can't just go from being a total slump (Maiden Virtual era) to being the biggest metal band on the planet again (2000) :p
 
Going back to the style of Maiden England. I'm glad it wasn't shot like Live After Death. LAD was shot like they were larger than life, arena rock super stars. Which was perfect for where they were at the time. Maiden England is more intimate; the stage looks smaller and the crowd doesn't look as large. It was like they were saying "this one's for the fans". They also wouldn't have been able to capture that with a festival audience, regardless of whether or not it was a better performance, which I still disagree with.

On the subject of the 90's. I get Foro's point and Robert Jones' point. I guess I stand in the middle. Fear Of The Dark (and to a lesser extent No Prayer) proved that a change needed to happen. Bruce leaving was good for both parties. We got some awesome solo material and a masterpiece with X Factor. I enjoy Virtual too but that seems to be a minority opinion around here. That said, Blaze doesn't cause me to like that material any more than I do, I don't think he was a good fit for the band. I love his first two solo albums, but his singing in Maiden doesn't do it for me. They brought Bruce back at the perfect time, I can't help but think that a third Blaze album and tour would be a disaster.
 
SixesAlltheway said:
I need a time machine to go back and find out what happened to metal in 1999 or more specifically from late 1998 to early 2000. Surely you can't just go from being a total slump (Maiden Virtual era) to being the biggest metal band on the planet again (2000) :p
Click to expand...
Sure you can. Metal as a whole was starting to go through a revival so that helped a lot. The return of Bruce won back a lot of fans and the Ed Huntour did well in building the hype up for a hugely successful album and followup tour. And it wasn't like an overnight thing. Watch bootlegs of the 1999 tour; they still aren't playing to the huge audiences everywhere. Plus they kept growing even after 2000. The show I saw last year was filled to the brim with people, while in 2003 there was maybe a quarter of that, same venue.
 
I thought they purposely scaled down for the Ed Huntour sorta to break back in Bruce and H and to give the fans a chance of "welcoming them back" so to speak. I do see your point though. But as you say the return of Bruce and Ed Huntour did a lot...I wonder if Maiden would have benefited as much from the metal revival had they stuck with Blaze for 1 more album
bth_Thinking.gif
But that will always just be speculation I guess...
 
I don't think they would've gotten much bigger with Blaze. Look at Judas Priest, they didn't start to get popular again until Halford returned, 5(?) years after Bruce rejoined Maiden.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top