Please explain the fascination with SIT

It's pretty obvious that Maiden didn't (pretty early) ,& certainly don't now, think the sound of SiT can be replicated that well live. Yes, they played quite lot of the album at the time; & yes, a few, have continued to be played sporadically. But, clearly, this is one of Maiden's albums where the studio sound was not easily transferrable to the live setting. (The don't use synths very often.)

Maiden have always taken a sound on tour with them. So Death On The Road brought the album (DoD) sound to the live setting; the latest tour brings TFF studio sound to the live setting, etc --& all the old classics get this same sound make-over, on these tours e.g. HBTN doesn't sound like 1982-Hallowed.

SiT has just too big a sound. And it was mixed/recorded in two studios (I think) --so the whole sound is purely a mix; it didn't even happen in the one studio, they way we hear it on the album. I'm pretty resigned to Maiden never returning (live) to this album, besides the usual tracks. So be it. I can live with AtG existing only as the 1986 version.

I don't know if "facination" is the correct word --but it's pretty obvious that SiT sounds distinctly different from all of Maiden's other albums. And if you like that sort of sound, you're going to rate this album pretty high. Not that difficult to understand really.
 
I've said it before and I'll keep saying it time and again. To me, 'Somewhere In Time' is the diamond hoovering in between the two rusty nuggets called 'Powerslave' and 'Seventh Son Of A Seventh Son'.

'Somewhere In Time' has a better production, better songwriting, better guitar solos, you name it.

My ranking of the songs goes like this:

1. Caught Somewhere In Time 10/10
2. Alexander The Great 10/10
3. Sea Of Madness 10/10
4. Wasted Years 10/10

5. Stranger In A Strange Land 8/10
6. Deja-Vu 8/10

7. The Loneliness Of The Long Distance Runner 7/10

8. Heaven Can Wait 6/10

Incidentally 'Somewhere In Time' is my 5th favourite Maiden album.
 
I think that context has a lot to do with it as well. Look at what else was going on or released during the 86/87 time-frame;

a). The first wave of hair-metal ended (1982 to 1985), and the second one was starting (1986 to 1991)
b). The thrash movement was really starting to take hold
c). So was the shred era
d). The other big British bands (e.g. Leppard, Priest, Sabbath/Iommi) were starting to get slicked-up to the nth degree. Lep's Hysteria was also recorded at Wisselord Studios at the same time that SIT was been recorded (partly recorded at Wisselord).....there must be something in that water over there. Bwahahaha!!!

I think that SIT properly bridged the gap between hair and thrash metal....for me it has the perfect blend of power and melody.

To further touch upon what CriedWhenBrucieLeft said, SIT was one of two studio albums that had a more experimental guitar-tone and production (out of 15 total...so far). So that makes it a rare "sound" for this band.....in fact, whenever I hear the SIT and SSOASS tunes played live since 1990 (when they returned to using Marshalls), they don't sound "right". Because we've been listing to SIT for 25+ years, our ears are programmed/trained to expect this rare sound. Also, our sense-memory is activated when listening to this album, which reinforces the nostalgic aspect the production (e.g. the want to hear it again). Does this make sense, or am I merely babbling? "BbBbBbBbBbBbBbBbBbbbBbbBBbbb!"
 
You are babbling; but you make sense. Basically, we're never going to hear the SiT "sound" ever again; either studio or live. Hence, the likelyhood of the tracks themselves being resurrected is slim, to none.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top