Maiden Fan Interview

F

finalfrontier

Invader
Hello, I haven't posted in a long while but I would like to call attention to those who have been to an Iron Maiden concert and please answer a few questions. I will just pick one answer for a speech I am doing over Iron Maiden at my university and I will be thankfull to those who do. Then you can deleat this thread if you want.

1) How does the energy given by Iron Maiden compare to those given by other similar bands?

2) Does the setlist ever feel broken/incomplete or does the band always gives the fans what they want even if there are so many classics to choose from?

3) For those who have been to many concerts, does the band seem to be showing any signs of aging over time or recently?

4) Do the fans seem to be particularly loyal and love to contribute more in an Iron Maiden concert comparred to other concerts?

Again I thank those who participates and please use a sentence(s) when answering.
 
Just my opinion:

1 I know just few comparable and only one with "more energy" and that's not even rock/metal.
2 Setlists are fine for me, of course every maiden fan would switch a few things according to his taste, but in general we can't complain.
3 Bruce's voice is evolving (I'm not saying getting worse, even if it shows some boundaries). Everybody else's as good as in the old days, for instance Nicko is IMO even improving.
4 Yes
 
  • 1. There is a certain... Electricity at a Maiden concert you don't find anywhere else. Other concerts people go to smoke, drink, fight etc but at Maiden that stuff is simply a bonus if it is even done in the first place. (well drinking is usually a constant lol. People are just so intertwined with the music. Without sounding sappy I guess you could say magical. Everybody is your friend just because you like Iron Maiden.
  • 2. UMMMM... I have always seen great set list. At the time I was really upset when they played the full AMOLAD but now I respect it, they were just showing that there not a nostalgia band and are confident in there new work. I would like to see some more SIT but thats one of thos things I Think
  • 3. Everybody does seem top notch. Only when I saw Maiden in Ft Lauderdale in 2011 did If feel Bruce was "losing his voice" though I would be more inclined to say fearful of going up to hit his high notes. I've seen maiden in 2006 2008 and now 2011 and I do feel like if any of the band is losing there edge its him. Not only his voice but his whole stage presence. In a way I feel like he would rather be flying planes and its more his mind is not there and his body imperfections our simply result of that. Also I dont know if it was only because they were in the USA for 2 tours but I am use to seeing pyrotechnics, a big eddie and crazy lighting and there was only some smoke, mediocre lightts and eddie only came out on stage and walked around no Eddie behind the stage.
  • 4. Yes and I feel number one sort of answers itself and this one. But to give you something to work with Ill give you an example. When I saw Judas Priest there were all old men who didnt really know the words or care for the band... just went to have something to do. At Maiden everybody knows every word of every song and wheres a maiden t shirt, its not a concert but a way of life for everyone.
Hope this helped!!!
 
1) I agree with the poster above me, I really can't compare other bands because none have so many devout followers like Iron Maiden (IMO). Or, at least I don't like other bands as much (with the exception of Dream Theater). So, it's just a huge mass of people who all love the same songs as you do, and that's the first component. The second component is Bruce who just knows how to animate every single person in the audience, even if that person isn't a die-hard Maiden fan. And, of course, the songs are great.

I'll go off on a tangent here - I watched a few minutes of a Rihanna DVD on a party recently. It's a great show, I guess, the venue was packed to the brim, everyone was singing, but somehow it just didn't do anything for me, it looked too "controlled", not genuine enough, not "unleashed" like Bruce. Plus, I don't think her songs will be remembered as timeless classics, she'll most likely be forgotten in a dozen years or so. I don't expect to hear a kid 30 years from now to say "whoa, I just discovered Rihanna, her music is so great". They'll just be listening to another version of Rihanna/Britney Spears/Backstreet Boys/New Kids on the Block...

2) Well, the setlist doesn't always amaze me, quite the contrary. I dislike the fact that they play the same exact songs each night of a tour, and most of all I dislike hearing Fear of the Dark, Run to the Hills, The Trooper, The Number of the Beast on virtually every tour. They could at least mix up the "classics" between each night. But then again, as my signature says, and everyone agrees, Maiden should do a lot of things.

3) The band actually sounds better now than it did from No Prayer until Virtual XI. The live material issued between those four albums was simply horrible. (This comment has nothing to do with Blaze Bayley.) Bruce does show a bit of a strain when hitting the high(est) notes, for example, he can't pull off the Number of the Beast scream "a tutta forza" anymore. But other than that, he and the rest of the band sound as good as they ever have (and yes, Nicko has even improved his technique and playing style). Example of bands who haven't aged that good: Metallica (turned to crap when Newsted left, Lars is worse than ever live), Whitesnake. I was at a Whitesnake concert last year, Coverdale's voice is really shot, nowhere near his old form.

4) Also, this is connected to the first question. This is a band which has stood the test of time and did their own thing for 35 years now. And I guess the fans appreciate it and just love every album because it's always Maiden. On more than one occasion, each band member has stated that Iron Maiden is primarily a live band, where (almost) every song is meant to be played to a live audience, not over the radio or the television.
 
I think Maiden (& Metal as a genre generally I suppose) are different, in comparison to mainstream music, because you are unlikely to go out & buy a Maiden album if you're not a fan. For me, Maiden's sales (80 million, or whatever it is) is more reflective of a tighter community of fans than the record sales of, say, U2, or Bon Jovi --where, I reckon, many of these sales are down to people who might not even consider themselves big fans of the band (--& of course Maiden's sales are all the more remarkable because of the lack of promotion on radio etc.) This is clearly going to influence the behaviour (& atmosphere created) of these fans at concerts; and I believe, with Maiden, it does.

That said, the longevity & popularity of Maiden (like many bands) is heavily influenced by the band (or perception of the band) themselves e.g. individual members, reputation (sex and drugs and rock & roll, and all that), musicianship etc --& not just the music (as an aesthetic entity) itself. Yes, the music needs to be good --but it's Maiden's "normal guy" image; their "haven't sold out"; their commitment/stamina generally as musicians; & their redeeming qualities (as fans perceive them) as people generally, and the music (the combination), that makes them special. I think there are loads of people making good music out there (across genres), but you need something else to be truly special like, in my opinion, Maiden. It's many factors (with the music itself playing a smaller role than I think some would like to admit), but Maiden seem to have it.

My wittering point is this: that Maiden fans probably think that Maiden do a lot of stuff other bands don't, or at least better. I think this is false; & mostly perception. Loads of bands can put on a better show than Maiden; & there is a lot of fine music out there too. However maybe Maiden just tick more boxes than other music performers; or the right boxes for a certain type of personality. They have certainly earned respect & loyalty, and probably don't lose many fans. The following are well educated on Maiden "history", and also seem pretty supportive of most things the band do. But that's mainly because they've kept it so simple: music, & very little ego. Albums & touring. It's pretty simple & people like it. Becoming a Maiden fan, once you're hooked, is so much fun. Maiden are an institution.

Sorry, to answer the questions:
1. Energy is good, but probably not any more epic than some other bands.
2. Setlists flow fine. We can't get everything; there's too much.
3. The performances don't seem to have changed greatly; those who always ran around, still run around. Adrian & Davey are a bit more static, but they never really did exude piles of energy on stage.
4. See above.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
My wittering point is this: that Maiden fans probably think that Maiden do a lot of stuff other bands don't, or at least better. I think this is false; & mostly perception. Loads of bands can put on a better show than Maiden;
Click to expand...

Well, I have seen quite a few bands but Maiden clearly sticks out.
That's not false, that's no perception. It's experience.

I don't think I could mention loads of bands who can put on a better show.

The energy and dedication Maiden brings along on stage, the fire in the eyes. I find that quite unique. The only bands that come close are Epica & Iced Earth when it comes to dedication and Rush when it comes to musicianship.

1) How does the energy given by Iron Maiden compare to those given by other similar bands?

The energy given by Maiden is unmatched. Spiritually, Maiden is the best live band in the world. Technically, Rush is the best live band in the world.

2) Does the setlist ever feel broken/incomplete or does the band always gives the fans what they want even if there are so many classics to choose from?

This is an issue which has caused lots of discussion over the years. My opinion:

New songs (2000-):
In 2006 I approved their guts when they played the full album, but from the next studio album they didn't play that many songs, compared to most other eras. For some strange, unknown reason, two of the most praised songs of the album were left out of the set (Starblind & Isle of Avalon).

Older songs (1990-1998):
I dislike their ignorance of their nineties material. There are four studio albums, and Maiden thinks it's only one song (Fear of the Dark).

Oldest songs (1980-1988):
From the eighties albums Maiden often turns back to only one or two (or three in the case of The Number of the Beasts) songs per album, often the same:

Iron Maiden -> Iron Maiden, Running Free, Sanctuary
Killers -> Wrathchild,
The Number of the Beast -> Run to the Hills, The Number of the Beast, Hallowed Be Thy Name
Piece of Mind -> The Trooper, Revelations
Powerslave -> 2 Minutes to Midnight
Somewhere in Time -> Wasted Years
Seventh Son of a Seventh Son -> The Evil that Men Do, Can I Play With Madness, The Clairvoyant

Yes, they did some other songs but these were rare occasions, and always the highlights of the set.

More variation, not per se (as Ranko pleads) per show. I'd like to see more variety per tour. I am looking forward to Maiden's next tour because it exactly does what I hoped for. It FINALLY brings the variation. It could feature songs from Maiden's 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 7th album that weren't played for ages.

Mind you, I am following Maiden on tour since 1992 so I am more "spoiled" than new fans, and I also feel I appreciate the 1990s more than most others here. New fans are more focused on the material from the last four albums and they have less demands when it comes to classics. I long for freshness again! ;-)

3) For those who have been to many concerts, does the band seem to be showing any signs of aging over time or recently?

There are a few signs of older age but Maiden plays some of the most intense music out there. Steve doesn't run that much anymore. Nicko might make a few more mistakes but Bruce is still very energetic. His voice is still in good shape and the guitarists are still doing well.

4) Do the fans seem to be particularly loyal and love to contribute more in an Iron Maiden concert comparred to other concerts?

I think so yes. I don't remember other audiences singing en masse along with instrumental melodies. That says enough. This can also be seen as an answer to the first question. Maiden brings so much energy that it moves a mass, a force unmatched by any other band.
 
I'm not sure if this directly answers the questions, but it speaks to the spirit of the conversation:
I have mentioned on this site how my daughters (turning 13 and 16 next week) are also big Maiden fans.
What I haven't mentioned is how they are not metalheads.
They certainly like more of the old man's stuff than the other way around, but most of the music they listen to is hip hop and pop.
And in a lot of ways their esteem for Maiden doesn't seem to fit.
And I think that speaks to the special quality of the band.
I see three reasons:
One is the legendary status Maiden holds — as spoken to above, they've been around for a long time and been good for a long time. They carry a certain aura.
Two is the songs — there are a helluvalot of good ones. My kids know and like so many there's not a lot of room to be disappointed about the ones that weren't played.
Three is the show — the energy and the spectacle matches the hype and showcases the music the way it was meant to be played. It not only confirms what the hype told you and your iPod told you, it elevates it to another level. Being in a crowd of 15,000 feeling the same way you do is powerful stuff.
It confirms you are in the presence of something special.
My kids have seen a variety of acts and download a variety of music.
Their favourite acts probably change fairly frequently, but for them, the greatest act is Maiden.
I've been a fan for 30 years. I am biased.
But looking at the way the kids react to the music and the show, I'd say the energy and the setlist does more than satisfy the loyal old guard, it is still inspiring that same type of loyalty in the new.
 
#2 & 3 I can't argue with you Forostar; which I like doing...

Okay, perhaps my "wittering" wasn't precisely worded enough. I didn't narrowly mean "bands" --I really meant musicians generally. (Even though that wasn't the question...) So, I clarify: Maiden fans probably think that Maiden do a lot of stuff other musicians don't, or at least better. I think this is false; & mostly perception.

So, bollocks Forostar! Quite a few bands? All the bands in the world? What about musicians who aren't in bands? I suggest this is perception, based on your experience of seeing Maiden, and other bands. It's your opinion, influenced (as all opinion of music is, I suggest), by many factors besides the music itself. How can you seriously suggest that Rush are "technically" the "best band in the world"? Even within the narrow definition of this argument (i.e. only bands) this sounds great --but what exactly are you basing this on? Are you a musician? I don't think this stands up to scrutiny.

I think literally everyone's opinion of music is: (for wont of a better word) the musician(s) "image" + the music. Image is probably the wrong word --for this word substitute everything about a musician, or musicians (band etc), except the music. This could include image, personalities, perceived musicianship, writing ability, likability, opinion of music genre, truths, untruths, etc. Basically anything you like, except the music; the sound itself.

This makes music which, in my opinion, is very close in actual merit, seem miles apart in the opinion of vying genre fans. So people who hate Metal music mentally add negative connotations of the genre (of Metal) to their opinion of the music generally. And, the opposite occurs for people who have a natural inclination towards Metal. The result is the stated opinion of these two parties are more polarised than they actually are, if the two just made a assessment of the music itself.

Don't shoot me down. You're going to say: I'm telling you, you are incapable of making an unbiased judgement of the merit of the music, itself, on its own. I suppose I am saying that. I'm basically saying that I think everyone struggles to judge only the music; simply because this isn't what appreciation of music is. I'm not really saying you haven't made a very informed assessment of the merits of Maiden (you clearly have) --I'm really saying that I think, like many Metal fans, you probably don't hold a very high opinion of some genres of music; & that this isn't based solely on the music itself. Everyone does this, I think. I'm assuming though, so please correct me.

I base this opinion on the inflated opinion (or conversely the overly judgemental opinion) that fans/critics have of any musician who, in my opinion, is not producing music which is exceptional, or original --or, like Maiden, are producing music of real merit (I'm trying to be as unbiased as possible here), but this is unfairly prejudiced by preconceived ideas, of a negative nature, of Metal music generally. Lady Gaga for example. Yeh, she writes; and clearly she can play the piano; but the music itself (opinions of its commercial/popular nature aside) is nothing special, in my opinion. So why the massive sales? Answer: her success is not down to just her music. It is only one factor.

I love Maiden. But, seriously, I just can't let a statement, like "Technically, Rush is the best live band in the world", stand unchallenged. This elevates Rush (& I assume Maiden) to a level of live musicianship (your opinion, I know) which just cannot stand close scrutiny. It's so disrespectful to the thousands of musicians, past & present, who either you haven't seen live, or who don't play a style of music you like. By what standards are you measuring this by?

Also: " I don't remember other audiences singing en masse along with instrumental melodies". You need to go to a few festivals of popular music. The crowds sing along to whole songs; often lyrics & melody. I just don't agree that this is unique to Maiden. Or, frankly, a good measure of loyalty or love. It's just one way of showing it.

Discuss!
(I've made some sweeping generalisations; especially about what you think --I'm sure you need to reply...:D)
 
1) How does the energy given by Iron Maiden compare to those given by other similar bands?
Personally the only band i've seen match Iron Maiden live is Billy Talent during their special BTIII leg, the same year I saw maiden at Quebec city summer festival.

2) Does the setlist ever feel broken/incomplete or does the band always gives the fans what they want even if there are so many classics to choose from?
It always feels good to ear the classics, the set I heard was really good but I wouldn't mind more recent material. This is not the case of many fans who stopped following the band in 1988 who don't appreciate masterpieces like Dance of Dead, The Wicker Man and These Colours don't run.

3) For those who have been to many concerts, does the band seem to be showing any signs of aging over time or recently?
My feeling on this and over live DVDs is that Bruce's voice may be reaching his limits. He's still one of the best vocalist there is and I appreciate his effort. Dave Murray also seems to be aging or atleast losing interest and focus. When I saw him live he was taking it way too cool imo. Not finishing his solos, dropping the hard parts...

4) Do the fans seem to be particularly loyal and love to contribute more in an Iron Maiden concert comparred to other concerts?
Probably in an arena concert yes. In a festival type, then you have tons of anybodys which probably prevents Iron Maiden from going wild.
 
WOW thanks for the replies. Just in time too. I thank all of you who replied, I have plenty of responses to choose from :) . Hopefully I can make some more Maiden Fans with these persuasive answers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top