Most overrated Maiden album?

I was waiting for someone to come back with Paranoid as an exception that proves the rule.:lol:

I don't want to be a smartarse, but Killers didn't have a lead single, Twilight Zone double A side with Wrathchild was actually released a month after the album was already out.

I was going to be a smartarse and point out that Wrathchild was not a B-side! :lol:
 
Nonsense calling RTTH filler. As has been pointed out it was the lead single released over a month before the albums release.

Fine if someone hates the song and thinks it’s shit, just use another term to describe it.

Filler songs are where a band needs one or two extra songs to fill out an album and are pushed for time so just cobble something together and chuck it on the album with a “that’ll do” attitude.

You don’t release filler songs as the lead single.
 
Without a doubt, the most overrated Iron Maiden album is The Number of the Beast simply because it is considered to be their best album by the general music world et al. I think the hardcore fanbase is pretty accepting of the fact that it is a monumental record with three of their most iconic songs ever written, some other very good tracks, and a couple that are pure shite.

In terms of being overrated specifically by the Maiden fanbase, it's Killers. Everyone should have this stinker towards the bottom of their lists but it's usually seen as "great".
 
Fair enough about Twilight Zone/Wrathchild.

That doesn't change the main point: A song being a (lead) single doesn't say anything about how a third party feels about it. The band and the label might stand behind the song; a listener can still hate it and feel that it is a filler.

The forum member in question even went into detail explaining why they felt RTTH is a filler in their mind. This dancing around semantics "nuh uh, it can't be filler, it was a lead single and sold a bajillion copies" is getting increasingly silly when talking about something that is entirely subjective. I just don't get why it's so hard to go "okay, let's agree to disagree" instead of talking down on someone else's opinion and ridiculing them.
 
As a normie, I can see why you'd love Number of the Beast. It has the iconic songs, the iconic cover, it permeated the barriers between metal and the rest of popular culture. And as a Maiden fan, I can see why you'd think it overrated. It's the thing that comes up publicly the most, but you know it's really Maiden just getting started.
 
Call me pedantic but I think using the word filler interchangeably with "song I don't like" just takes all the meaning out of the word. It's meant to specifically describe songs that were put together "off the cuff" to fill out the run time on the album, Genghis Khan on Killers being a famous example. Calling Run to the Hills a filler track just isn't correct, I don't think there's much subjectivity there.
 
Call me pedantic but I think using the word filler interchangeably with "song I don't like" just takes all the meaning out of the word. It's meant to specifically describe songs that were put together "off the cuff" to fill out the run time on the album, Genghis Khan on Killers being a famous example. Calling Run to the Hills a filler track just isn't correct, I don't think there's much subjectivity there.
Yeah, there's a big difference between filler tracks and tracks that are just plain bad/you don't like. Technically, Sanctuary is a filler song. But it's better than a few songs on the debut. Technically, Total Eclipse is a filler track, but it's better than two songs on TNOTB.

I probably rate most songs I consider "filler" a 5-7/10. Songs I dislike a 5/10 or lower.

Sometimes, albums have 6 filler songs, most of which you don't really like. For instance, Killers.

:D
 
Call me pedantic but I think using the word filler interchangeably with "song I don't like" just takes all the meaning out of the word. It's meant to specifically describe songs that were put together "off the cuff" to fill out the run time on the album, Genghis Khan on Killers being a famous example. Calling Run to the Hills a filler track just isn't correct, I don't think there's much subjectivity there.
There's still subjectivity at play. One can look at RTTH and analyze it in a way that could make it seem very formulaic and by the numbers. It's not difficult to see how some people could see it as a filler track, especially when the rest of the album is quite different to it.

People don't have to agree; I certainly don't consider RTTH a filler, despite not being a big fan of it, but I can at least see why someone would get that idea. Again: It's really not that complicated to accept different opinions, even if we disagree with them.
 
There's still subjectivity at play. One can look at RTTH and analyze it in a way that could make it seem very formulaic and by the numbers. It's not difficult to see how some people could see it as a filler track, especially when the rest of the album is quite different to it.

People don't have to agree; I certainly don't consider RTTH a filler, despite not being a big fan of it, but I can at least see why someone would get that idea. Again: It's really not that complicated to accept different opinions, even if we disagree with them.
Give it rest will you. How many more times can you keep going about accepting other people’s opinions, it’s getting very boring now.

As a few others have said, whether you like run to the hills or you think it’s total garbage that’s the subjective part. One man’s treasure is another man’s trash as they say so I don’t think anyone, myself included, are trying to argue about peoples opinions on the track. I can fully accept that someone might loathe it and that’s fine.

What’s not subjective and not up for debate is whether it’s a filler track or not.

I’ve mentioned it in a past post and so has one or two others that the definition of filler is a track “cobbled together” and thrown onto an album just to fill the run time and bulk out the album.

You can’t say a track like run to the hills was cobbled together and just thrown on to the album with no real thought other than “we already have 7 tracks done but we need one more to fill out the album so let’s just throw something together”.

Then, this completely throwaway filler track that had no real thought or effort put into it is then chosen to announce Bruce to the world as Maidens new vocalist and be a taster of the new album that would be released over a month later. Also, they then go out and spend money making a video for this completely throwaway filler track. It’s absolutely absurd to argue that someone is entitled to have the opinion that RTTH is a filler as this is simply factually not true.

As I’ve said and I won’t be saying it again because this whole thing is boring me now, if you don’t like the track fine; that’s subjective. It is simply wrong to call it a filler track.
 
Give it rest will you.
Nah, I don't think I will ;)

As a few others have said, whether you like run to the hills or you think it’s total garbage that’s the subjective part. One man’s treasure is another man’s trash as they say so I don’t think anyone, myself included, are trying to argue about peoples opinions on the track. I can fully accept that someone might loathe it and that’s fine.

What’s not subjective and not up for debate is whether it’s a filler track or not.
It literally is and I literally explained how so in the very comment you replied to.

I’ve mentioned it in a past post and so has one or two others that the definition of filler is a track “cobbled together” and thrown onto an album just to fill the run time and bulk out the album.
Yes and as I already explained someone can look at RTTH's structure and come to that conclusion, whether you agree or not. There is not objectivity; it is purely subjective. You are trying to argue from a position of consensus which misses the point entirely.

You can’t say a track like run to the hills was cobbled together and just thrown on to the album with no real thought other than “we already have 7 tracks done but we need one more to fill out the album so let’s just throw something together”.
Yes, you can. I don't believe that, but other people can think that and it is a valid opinion. It's as simple as that.

Then, this completely throwaway filler track that had no real thought or effort put into it is then chosen to announce Bruce to the world as Maidens new vocalist and be a taster of the new album that would be released over a month later. Also, they then go out and spend money making a video for this completely throwaway filler track. It’s absolutely absurd to argue that someone is entitled to have the opinion that RTTH is a filler as this is simply factually not true.
You are once again conflating two entirely different things, but go off I guess, if it makes you any happier.

As I’ve said and I won’t be saying it again because this whole thing is boring me now, if you don’t like the track fine; that’s subjective. It is simply wrong to call it a filler track.
It's not wrong. It's an opinion like any other. But I'm glad that you won't repeat it because I'm bored of your inability to comprehend subjectivity and other people's opinions ;)
 
The only true filler on NOTB is Gangland as that really was cobbled together at the last minute. They even forgot to record Dave's solo. And it only made the cut because Total Eclipse lost the coin toss.
 
The only true filler on NOTB is Gangland as that really was cobbled together at the last minute. They even forgot to record Dave's solo. And it only made the cut because Total Eclipse lost the coin toss.
IMO, despite that Gangland is far superior to Total Eclipse. The latter is one of the worst songs they've ever written and it is such a waste of some pretty cool ideas. The vocals towards the end are utterly atrocious and unmusical to my ears.
 
I hear metal fans use the old “sales doesn’t equal quality” argument all the time. Quality of music is totally subjective but metal fans seem to take a dim view of certain pop acts outselling their favourite metal bands and then go on to say stuff like “we’ll all those people buying the pop stuff are just sheep and only buying albums because they’ve been told the artist is good and they are really stupid people”. It’s like some metal fans think they have a superior music taste to anyone who listens to stuff like Justin Bieber in your example. You don’t have a superior taste in music you just have a different taste in music.

someone like Justin Bieber is important in the world of music as he has sold over 150 million records. That means he has a lot of fans who like like what he does. Just because you might think his music sucks doesn’t mean that he isn’t important and significant to the world of music nor does it mean everyone who listens to him and buys his records are just dim witted idiots.
Disagree. First of all, I never said his fans are idiots or anything. I just disputed that quality and sales have any correlation. I also did not speak of importance. Bieber's music is in itself less detailed and less dynamic, basically built on cheap drumloops, most basic chord structure, lyrics without topics, samples and autotune galore. It is, from a composers point of view and in terms of production, a very cheap product.
Now you may say you like a cheap cheeseburger 1000 times more than fresh cuisine, and thats fine. Taste. But that does not change the fact that the cheeseburger is junkfood, even if it may taste better. Some days I prefer junkfood too, but I would never call it good quality.
Quality is objective. Taste is not.

I am not bashing TNOTB. It IS a good album, despite some terrible songs, because the rest is very good. It just does not live up to its reputation in my opinion. Neither in Maidens catalogue, nor in Metal in general.

And of course a filler can be chosen as lead single. It happened countless times. Black Sabbath's Paranoid (was written in 5 minutes to fulfill the albums running time). Extreme's More Than Words. Mr Big's To Be With You. Stranglers' Golden Brown. Visage's Fade To Grey. All of them were intended as fillers, all of them became massive hits. There are surely many more.

Now, if RTTH was written as a filler or not, I honestly don't know. Maybe it was intended as a possible hit all along, and in that case the term would not be appropriate. Okay. I used the term mainly because in my ears, that song does not reach higher level than a typical filler. But okay, then I apologize for calling it a filler and call it a turd instead. But then people complain that I am hating.
Abd here we come full circle: while you say Metal fans are high and mighty and think they are better, I say Metal fans tend to see certain opinions as some sort of natural law. Like you HAVE to love TNOTB when you are a metalhead.

I am interested in arguments of people explaning me why they think I am wrong and why something is good, but record sales really are no argument at all.
 
IMO it's simple. The Number of the Beast is easily the most overrated Maiden album. Don't get me wrong, Hallowed and Acacia are in my top 10 Maiden tracks of all time, but I never really cared for the other 2 hits, I never really listen to Invaders and Gangland ( their 2 worst 80s songs in my opinion). The rest are OK, I like both Prisoner and Children of the Damned.
Another choice would be Killers for me. Yes, the production is better than in IM, but the tracks are like leftovers of the first album. I didn't pick it because they are all decent tracks, they are just not as good as Phantom, Prowler etc.
My last choice is Fear of the Dark, but it's not overrated by die hard fans. Some casuals just like the title track and think that the whole album must be perfect.
 
Many of the songs are blatantly unfinished and keep repeating the same verses multiple times. Iconic artwork, better production, but the songs themselves aren't as good as the ones on the debut. Which makes sense, considering Steve chose the best songs in his opinion from 75 to 80, put them on the debut, and used the "left overs" for Killers. So, one could theoretically call it "Fillers"
True, but I wouldn't call them unfinished.
Without a doubt, the most overrated Iron Maiden album is The Number of the Beast simply because it is considered to be their best album by the general music world et al. I think the hardcore fanbase is pretty accepting of the fact that it is a monumental record with three of their most iconic songs ever written, some other very good tracks, and a couple that are pure shite.
Why the album which is considered the best by the general music world have to be the most overrated by default? For example it's the same as Priest's DOTF - 2 weak songs, they're not even full songs. Or BS because I don't like a couple of the songs on it.?
Yeah, there's a big difference between filler tracks and tracks that are just plain bad/you don't like. Technically, Sanctuary is a filler song. But it's better than a few songs on the debut. Technically, Total Eclipse is a filler track...
Agreed.
There's still subjectivity at play. One can look at RTTH and analyze it in a way that could make it seem very formulaic and by the numbers. It's not difficult to see how some people could see it as a filler track, especially when the rest of the album is quite different to it.
RTTH can't be filler, such a classic, lead single and anthemic song. It just can't. And btw, most of the classic songs of the bands are ''simpler'', the style or approach. The rest of the album quite different to it? I wouldn't say. The album should have cut one of the 2 weaker songs, that's it. The time was everything.
I quite like Gangland. More than Total Eclipse or Invaders.
Same. I prefer Total Eclipse to Invaders. And it fits the album more. Invaders is Killers-esque.
My last choice is Fear of the Dark, but it's not overrated by die hard fans. Some casuals just like the title track and think that the whole album must be perfect.
FOTD is underrated.
 
Back
Top