Piece of Mind vs. Powerslave

Higher, lower or equal?

  • Higher

    Votes: 20 33.3%

  • Lower

    Votes: 34 56.7%

  • Equal

    Votes: 6 10.0%
  • Total voters
    60
Lower. While both albums are very very good, Powerslave is much more consistent throughout and displays the band at what is possibly their all-time energetic peak. Plus, the band sound inspired as ever.
 
I can't agree with this. They've basically played just half of the Powerslave tracks live (Losfer Words being played sporadically).
If you want to estimate an average band opinion about the album, just take a look at how many songs they've played on that tour, and how many survived to be on subsequent tours. This is even more straightforward in 1980s, when they didn't have such a huge repository of songs.

Piece of Mind was heavily represented on the Powerslave tour.
Piece of Mind was more represented on SoT than Powerslave.
Piece of Mind was more represented on SSoASS than Powerslave.

Again, Powerslave has 4 tracks that are unanimously good, the rest is debatable. I'm not talking our opinions here, I'm talking band opinions reflected through their intent to play stuff live.

Btw, even if Powerslave was Dickinson's top creative moment in the 1980s, he does put Piece of Mind above it as his favourite. There is no band peak, Dickinson went downhill after Piece of Mind, Murray and Harris possibly had this peak in Powerslave era, but certainly McBrain and Smith had their moment of fame by the time of Somewhere in Time.

It maybe energetic, fast and furious, and the guitar sound might be the holy grail of 1980s heavy metal, but Powerslave seriously lacks groove. Even if I change my stance and take the opinion that Duellists, FOTB, Village and BigOrra are of same quality as the other 4 for granted, this kills album for me.

In my book, Powerslave is definetely the last, the 4th, the "worst" of the 1983-1988 lineup.
 
Powerslave all the way. I can't really say anything bad about POM, but Powerslave outshines it in every way possible. A monumental testament to the power, imagination, brilliance and pure magic of Maiden in the 80's, without a single tune I'd give a less than perfect score. My all-time favourite Maiden record.
 
Sure, very imaginative, start with semi-pro fencing and write two songs about swords. None will get any live play. But never the less, they're a monumental testament. Ancient Egypt theme is also very new, refreshing and like swords, nobody has ever done that in rock/metal before them.
 
It's not what they did, it's the way they did it (in my opinion, of course). It also doesn't matter how many songs there are on the same subject, they're completely different songs, and that's what matters. Plus, @Zare, you keep talking about songs getting played live or not as if it defines our personal opinions as right or wrong. The band's opinion is not the same as ours, otherwise we would get "Alexander the Great" played live. It doesn't really matter what the band think, it's our personal taste which defines whether an album is good or bad, and there's nothing you, I or any other person can do about that. The fact that a song gets overlooked by the artist doesn't make it bad, or even weak, it all depends on how you choose to hear it. Otherwise, we would all think the same and these discussions would never even go anywhere.
 
Number 6 said:
It's not what they did, it's the way they did it.
Click to expand...

This. The rest of your post is spot-on too :)
Obviously Ancient Egypt as a theme has been used by almost every rock/metalband out there, but very few have done it as well and impressive as Maiden IMO.
 
Number 6 said:
It's not what they did, it's the way they did it (in my opinion, of course). It also doesn't matter how many songs there are on the same subject, they're completely different songs, and that's what matters. Plus, @Zare, you keep talking about songs getting played live or not as if it defines our personal opinions as right or wrong. The band's opinion is not the same as ours, otherwise we would get "Alexander the Great" played live. It doesn't really matter what the band think, it's our personal taste which defines whether an album is good or bad, and there's nothing you, I or any other person can do about that. The fact that a song gets overlooked by the artist doesn't make it bad, or even weak, it all depends on how you choose to hear it. Otherwise, we would all think the same and these discussions would never even go anywhere.
Click to expand...

I agree, of course the beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

But saying Powerslave is peak of imagination is wrong. Why? Because the author of the track, that became the basis for the visuals of the album era, said himself that the theme isn't original. Magic and peak - again these songs were not played live by a seminal live band. In majority of cases, Maiden won't play songs they don't see as a good live fit. They cannot recreate the magic. This is problem with 75% of Somewhere In Time. 3 out of 6 tracks they've played back then didn't work well at all live...CSiT, SOM and Runner. Two were dropped soon.

So I am to approve someone's opinion that it doesn't matter if a live band, that's always spoken of themselves as a live band, even on latest studio releases reused the live approach, doesn't think that song is worth playing live, somehow the song is the testament of their band magic? No. Because it isn't logical.

Edit : for example, Empire might be a great song, especially for its length. But it can't be done live. Not in a Maiden setting. It would be wrong to call Empire as greatest Iron Maiden song because Iron Maiden cannot perform this song for Iron Maiden audience inside a typical Iron Maiden show and that's what its all about.

Edit 2 : keep in mind that I just responded once to each person, that's my opinion and we don't need to argue over it. Opinions are hardly worth discussing in depth anyways. Just sharing my viewpoint :) And why I can't easily say "ok" to some of the stuff that's been very unambiguously written here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Zare said:
Edit : for example, Empire might be a great song, especially for its length. But it can't be done live. Not in a Maiden setting. It would be wrong to call Empire as greatest Iron Maiden song because Iron Maiden cannot perform this song for Iron Maiden audience inside a typical Iron Maiden show and that's what its all about.
Click to expand...
Haha, I call bullshit. Live performances have nothing to do with what makes a song good. It only sways a listener when they see it / hear it live.
 
Plus, Maiden establishing themselves as a live band doesn't necessarily make them a live band. Sure, a lot of their songs (like "Powerslave", and "Paschendale", for example) work far better live, but that doesn't mean a studio-only song can't be good, or great, or one of Maiden's best. For instance, "Rime...", in my opinion, is much better in studio than live. Would that invalidate the possibility to consider it as being Maiden's best? Another example: "Alexander the Great" is (very commonly) rated insanely high, ranking among Maiden's finest. But it's never been played live... so I guess those high ratings (mine included) must be wrong. ;)
 
@Zare Oh, and I guess it's safe to assume (based on your arguments) that you think A Matter of Life and Death is their best album ever, followed closely by Virtual XI?
 
Diesel 11 said:
Haha, I call bullshit. Live performances have nothing to do with what makes a song good. It only sways a listener when they see it / hear it live.
Click to expand...

You are utterly wrong. If it can't be played live the chemistry is not there, it's called studio work.
And yes AMOLAD is one of my fav. Maiden records.
 
I'd say that Fear is generally hated more. Funnily enough, I love it, but I can't really dig into XI. It's good, enjoyable and everything, but it doesn't feel as great as the rest of the discography. I have the same problem with Killers. A good album, but surrounded by a sea of greatness, therefore I can't enjoy it in full.
 
Zare said:
You are utterly wrong. If it can't be played live the chemistry is not there, it's called studio work.
Click to expand...
Funny given that most of their studio versions beat the live ones. Besides, Empire of the Clouds, regardless of being not a live song, has the single best chemistry of any song ever recorded. Everyone is doing their part and it works insanely. Live sound is an afterthought.

JudasMyGuide said:
I'd say that Fear is generally hated more.
Click to expand...
Only on this forum, lol. :D
 
XI is fucked by production and engineering. It sounds like crap and decisions to simplify the beats and everything was BS. If they just released a live CD of the tour it would be better than the record itself. There the drums are thunder and riffs are soaring. Similar with TXF - but that one is plagued by engineering and arrangement decisions (Judgement Day not on the record)
 
Diesel 11 said:
Funny given that most of their studio versions beat the live ones.
Click to expand...
This. I see so many Maiden fans saying that they outdo themselves live, and that every song of theirs works better in a live setting than in the studio. I never got it, it's what you said: most of their songs sound far more inspired, fresh and... epic in studio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top