Maiden settles the Hallowed Be Thy Name claim in full

Hallowed isn't affected a single iota by the lines Steve took. If anything they are the worst lyrics in the song as they don't fit with the rest of the song.

Nomad, I wish they'd stole the whole of Life's Shadow as the part they didn't steal is not the mae west.
 
As expected. Basically, most of the times: people who do not care much about theft itself, won't be affected much either when playing the stolen products.
 
I must admit my enjoyment of Hallowed be Thy Name has been affected (slightly) by this issue, but that predates the appearance of McKay and dates to when I bought the Beckett album many moons ago. My enjoyment of The Nomad was much more affected, as in the case of that song it was not a case of some lyrics being recycled.

That being said, my view of Steve and Rod has been somewhat tainted by the recent events though, especially considering the arguments presented to defend themselves.
 
Brigantium said:
My opinion of Hallowed is totally unchanged. The unique aspects of the storyline and the music itself are its strong points. With The Nomad, it's a track I rarely listen to other than when playing BNW in full anyway.
Click to expand...
I was about to post basically the same thing.
 
Perun said:
With all the hype the concept of originality gets these days, it's easily forgotten that artists have done this sort of thing forever.
Click to expand...
Very shrewd observation there. It's fine to incorporate other people's material (although it should be acknowledged and paid for) and the finished song can still be very much creation of the songwriter. In HBTN and The Nomad Steve (and Dave) have incorporated elements of Life's Shadow and used them to create two completely new, different songs - whatever Barry McKay may think they actually own nothing to Life's Shadow except the elements actually used; they are Steve's (and Dave's) songs. I have listened to both in the last couple of weeks, and although recent events coloured the experience with a little sadness I was struck all over again by how brilliant they are.

In Mick Wall's book "Run to the Hills" the writing and recording of the TNOTB album is described as a "mad, unholy rush", to the extent that they actually included two songs Steve didn't really like (including one of his own!) simply because they didn't have any time left to write anything else, and they had to choose the singles before they had recorded anything at all. So this gives some context to Steve's statement about the "guide lyric" that ended up not being replaced. The original omission seems to have come about in the wake of the confusion caused by the arrival of Bruce. Why it laid unnoticed and unaddressed for so long we cannot tell, but there was never any attempt to hide it (as @mckindog pointed out earlier). And when it was brought to their attention, Steve's and Rod's, they 'fessed up right away and set about putting it right to the best of their knowledge and belief, which is entirely how I expected they would respond and I believe this response is the true measure of both their characters.

I think it's important to remember that they fought the court case over who the royalties were owed to, not over whether they were owed (no idea what's going on in the background, but that's not relevant to the point). And I think everyone might also give Rod the benefit of the doubt because he might well have been the victim of bad advice as well: he can't be an expert on everything and he would have called in experts to advise on the finer points.
 
Last edited:
There's more to Hallowed than stolen lyrics, simple as that.

The best part of The Nomad is from the Beckett song, I can do without the rest.
 
Hmm. I find Bruce's singing incredibly awesome in The Nomad. And riffs and that eastern vibe as well. I can do without the stolen part.
 
Black Abyss Babe said:
In Mick Wall's book "Run to the Hills" the writing and recording of the TNOTB album is described as a "mad, unholy rush", to the extent that they actually included two songs Steve didn't really like (including one of his own!) simply because they didn't have any time left to write anything else, and they had to choose the singles before they had recorded anything at all. So this gives some context to Steve's statement about the "guide lyric" that ended up not being replaced. The original omission seems to have come about in the wake of the confusion caused by the arrival of Bruce. Why it laid unnoticed and unaddressed for so long we cannot tell, but there was never any attempt to hide it (as @mckindog pointed out earlier). And when it was brought to their attention, Steve's and Rod's, they 'fessed up right away and set about putting it right to the best of their knowledge and belief, which is entirely how I expected they would respond and I believe this response is the true measure of both their characters.
Click to expand...
The 80s were a frantic time for Iron Maiden in general. Their rise from NWOBHM upstarts in 1980 to the biggest Heavy Metal band on the planet in 1986 was quite rapid so I guess the plagiarism could've been forgotten about in all the madness from recording albums and touring the world. Back in 1982 I doubt anyone could have forseen how technology would progress over the next thirty years. Beckett had probably been forgotten about by all but a few people by 1982 so it was probably assumed by Maiden that stealing Beckett's lyrics wouldn't ever be an issue, but fast-forward thirty years and the Beckett album has made its way onto Youtube and Beckett's drummer is discussing the songs on an Iron Maiden forum. Who would've predicted that?
 
Ziggyplayedguitar said:
Let’s be honest, will anyone enjoy HBTN or The Nomad as much as they used to considering the settlement?
Click to expand...
Yes. They're still good (great) songs, I still love both as much as I used to. I get it, they should've credited the original songwriters they took inspiration from (I like to think Steve and Dave are above plagiarising) by reusing the original musical idea and developing it into something completely new and different (consider it an interpolation, if you will). But it doesn't change the fact that both are brilliant songs with enough creative input to be called "original", despite the "theft".
 
I've been wondering...and I know it's not strictly plagiarizing but in the light of all this...What do people here think about the fact that Steve/Maiden have "borrowed" a great deal of books/movie titles as titles for their own songs? Not really original ideas there either in many cases :)
 
Forostar said:
As expected. Basically, most of the times: people who do not care much about theft itself, won't be affected much either when playing the stolen products.
Click to expand...

Papa Roach stole from Maiden and had a bigger hit with it than Maiden ever did. I'm not crying myself to sleep about that "theft" either.
 
SixesAlltheway said:
I've been wondering...and I know it's not strictly plagiarizing but in the light of all this...What do people here think about the fact that Steve/Maiden have "borrowed" a great deal of books/movie titles as titles for their own songs? Not really original ideas there either in many cases :)
Click to expand...
If that was against the law, almost every big bang would get sued.

I do wonder why Metallica was never sued by Lynyrd Skynyrd for stealing the Sweet Home Alabama riff in the middle of The Four Horsemen.
 
Night Prowler said:
If that was against the law, almost every big bang would get sued.

I do wonder why Metallica was never sued by Lynyrd Skynyrd for stealing the Sweet Home Alabama riff in the middle of The Four Horsemen.
Click to expand...

Because it is a very costly process. Steve and Dave are facing a stubborn individual who is willing to spend that money to right a wrong, but not every artist can afford to do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top