Modern Maiden compared to vintage Maiden

Forostar said:
The band simpy wanted to put more space, depth and especially more melody in the music. That's why the music is less raw. That's "a matter of taste or death". ;)

Of course there's still the raw energy of Janick's live playing.

Lightintheblack omits the fact that Adrian was out of the band in 1990-1998. Janick replaced him and kicked the whole band under their arses. He was and still is a motivator. So you can't get rid of someone who helped the band a great deal in their toughest times. He was of major importance for TXF. When Adrian returned, Janick contributed still more to the material than Adrian. On the last album that was different of course.

My point is: Adrian's return is cool, but to get rid of Janick would be an unworthy thing to do.
Click to expand...

Whilst I do appreciate Janicks contributions to the band during Adrians absence I do still feel that the band as a whole are better with Adrian in it and I feel they missed Adrian far more than they would miss Janick(IMHO the material recorded without Adrian whilst still very good does not compare favourably with the material which included Adrian)but I am NOT advocating that the band get rid of Janick I am simply stating that I dont think the band would miss him musically but obviously they would on a personal level ,any interview I have seen with Janick he always comes across as a really decent bloke but I personally dont rate him too highly as a guitarist. :(
 
Forostar said:
Maiden are not lazy when it comes to writing and learning new songs. That's an understatement.
All other bands on this planet are more lazy when it comes to writing and performing so many new songs, especially since Maiden played the whole last album, with quite some complicated songs.
Click to expand...

Yes, Foro is right about this - I only meant my comment about "Maiden are lazy" to apply to the older songs on their setlists, not their new albums.

Eddie's Wingman asked if "Revelations" was played before Early Days tour - yes, it was. It was on the GMETID setlist in 2003. It was not on the DOD or AMOLAD tours, but it has been present on 3 of the last 5 tours.
 
GuineaPig said:
All these issues would be solved if Maiden just played 2 and a half hour sets.

But they never will  :(
Click to expand...
Yeah, not asking much there. Just six guys in their fifties to exert themselves night after night playing massive sets. The fact is that a lot of other bands that are much younger don't play sets as long as Maiden do, or put as much energy into them, so asking for Maiden to do more is a bit idiotic.
 
Hunlord said:
Yeah, not asking much there. Just six guys in their fifties to exert themselves night after night playing massive sets. The fact is that a lot of other bands that are much younger don't play sets as long as Maiden do, or put as much energy into them, so asking for Maiden to do more is a bit idiotic.
Click to expand...

one word:

RUSH.
 
Forostar said:
Yep, they do it. Of course they take a break in the middle of the set, but they do it.
Click to expand...

I'll never know how Neil Peart keeps it up all night, even with the short break.
 
SinisterMinisterX said:
Eddie's Wingman asked if "Revelations" was played before Early Days tour - yes, it was. It was on the GMETID setlist in 2003. It was not on the DOD or AMOLAD tours, but it has been present on 3 of the last 5 tours.
Click to expand...

Ah, it was played at the Give Me Ed ... tour as well. Wasn't aware of that. But still it is one of the songs I am looking most forward to hear live, together with Moonchild and the songs from Powerslave. And Wasted Years, of course  :)

As a comment to the thing about never changing the setlist during the tour (except sometimes switching a song or two after the first few shows if it doesn't seem to work well):

Of course, many fans would be disappointed if a particular song was dropped if they knew the set list already. But I might have mentioned it before - a nice idea could be to keep, say, 8-10 songs throughout the whole tour, and play around with the rest of the set list.

A nice idea imho is if, say, Can I Play With Madness from time to time was exchanged for The Evil That Men Do, then after some shows this one was replaced by Infinite Dreams and so on - for CIPWM to return later in the tour. That would of course demand the band to relearn more songs, and since they are lazy that's not going to happen  :innocent:
 
GuineaPig said:
one word:

RUSH.
Click to expand...


As much as I love Rush, I think you're missing something here.

Do you ever see Geddy Lee running around like a maniac? Do you ever see Lifeson throwing shapes all over the place? Not even the crowd goes as nuts during a Rush show.

I love Rush, they're absolutely brilliant, and it's great that they play for 3 hours straight, and it's great that you can enjoy the show right up front without having to fear being smashed, BUT Maiden are just something very, VERY different.

Just check Hunlord's reply and you'll know what I mean.
 
I understand the statements about 'lazy' and all, but one thing I was thinking last night, who are they doing this for?  At this point in their career, they don't really need to do it for the fans.  I am thinking they are playing things that they enjoy, stuff that is fun for them and that they are really proud of.  Sure, getting new fans is great, keeping old ones happy is also, but I can assure you that no one I saw leaving Chicago was upset at all.  Both this time and on AMOLAD.  Honestly, I'll go to see Maiden play anything they want to play. 
 
I've never had a problem with the setlist.  They can play Fear of the Dark, Run to the Hills, and anything in between and I really don't care, just as long as they play kick-ass songs.  It's all the same to me whether they've been played before.  What a lot of people, including people on this forum, forget is that Maiden are also getting a lot of newer fans, and for many (including me) this is even their first gig ever.  Last tour was AMOLAD, where they didn't play a lot of old songs.  And Maiden have grown in popularity a lot in recent years; surely Maiden have got quite a lot of new fans between 2006 and 2008?  These are people who have never even seen the "classic" over-played songs, so for them, they aren't overplayed.
 
Maidenfreak said:
As much as I love Rush, I think you're missing something here.

Do you ever see Geddy Lee running around like a maniac? Do you ever see Lifeson throwing shapes all over the place? Not even the crowd goes as nuts during a Rush show.

I love Rush, they're absolutely brilliant, and it's great that they play for 3 hours straight, and it's great that you can enjoy the show right up front without having to fear being smashed, BUT Maiden are just something very, VERY different.

Just check Hunlord's reply and you'll know what I mean.
Click to expand...




I agree after the Toronto show I don’t think I could have lasted another 15 minutes let alone a whole hour. It would be great but the crowed wouldn’t be nearly as energetic and the atmosphere the crowed creates is a big part of the show for me.
 
My point is: Adrian's return is cool, but to get rid of Janick would be an unworthy thing to do.
Click to expand...
Unless you're Jon Schaffer  :innocent:.


I totally agree with SMX about Maiden being lazy to learn some of the songs they haven't played for years.  This tour is about making easy money.  I don't think they're worried about the fans opinion.  This is the golden era for heaven's sake,  any song would probably be welcomed.  I praise them for what they did with AMOLAD and I don't think they should care about people bashing them for not playing the classics.  I always thought Maiden stuck to their guns and didn't give a f**k about other's opinions.  Those were their songs and it was their choice to play them live.  "Every band is as good as it's last album",  so if someone doesn't like modern Maiden don't go to the album tours. 

And besides,  don't they get tired of playing the same songs over and over again?

I also think the shows could be a bit longer.  Not talking 2 and a half hours here,  2 hours would work.  Fifteen minutes longer than what it is now,  and you can add 3 more songs.  Seriously they're not that old.  Of course there are younger bands that play for about the same time,  but there also "old" bands that keep playing long set lists.  Metallica played for 2 1/2 hours last year.  Queensryche played Operations Mindcrime I and II. 
 
I would agree that with re-learning the old songs Maidens are a tad on the lazy side but  they have consitantly toured since 2005, Early Days, AMOLAD, NOTB anniversary and now Somewhere on Tour.  So they're centainly not slacking off in giving live performances to their fans.  Hopefully they will start throwing in some of the lesser heard album tracks from the past on future tours.
 
Given that they haven't done that much in 25+ years, what are the odds they'd do it now?  Last time they properly took out old less played songs was on the tour after the Fear of the Dark tour (I forget the name), and that was 15 years ago.  They were all in their 30's then ;)
 
That's just not true. Edhuntour, Gimme Ed... 'Til I'm Dead and Early Days all saw many classics that hadn't been played in ages. On their regular album tours, Maiden have also brought back a few pearls that hadn't been played in ages (Can I Play With Madness, Lord Of The Flies)... what the hell makes you being so unfair to them? Moreover, the majority of people on the gigs simply wouldn't want to hear Losfer Words or Charlotte The Harlot. Let's be honest, most of the songs that haven't been played in ages and haven't been brought back for history tours simply don't work as well live as others.
 
Perun said:
That's just not true. Edhuntour, Gimme Ed... 'Til I'm Dead and Early Days all saw many classics that hadn't been played in ages. On their regular album tours, Maiden have also brought back a few pearls that hadn't been played in ages (Can I Play With Madness, Lord Of The Flies)... what the hell makes you being so unfair to them? Moreover, the majority of people on the gigs simply wouldn't want to hear Losfer Words or Charlotte The Harlot. Let's be honest, most of the songs that haven't been played in ages and haven't been brought back for history tours simply don't work as well live as others.
Click to expand...

I don't know the exact general setlists for the tours, as my main information about what they played comes from the live albums and the odd bootleg.  Early Days I wouldn't really count, since there the point was to be a history tour and bring those less-played classics.  But fair enough, point taken.

For the sake of argument, though, I would count Lord of the Flies as neither a classic nor a song that hasn't been played in ages; there were only 5 years, 2 tours, and 1 album between Dance of Death (on whose tour it was played) and Virtual XI (where it came from). 

And I don't think I'm really being unfair to them, I'm just trying to see both sides of the argument.  I said earlier in this thread (the one in spoiler tags) that I don't care what they play as long as they play kick-ass songs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top