Question about NO PRAYER album

Natalie said:
But I'm not sure where the blanket statement of "youngsters" digesting lots of music nowadays in a shorter amount of time is valid to this discussion.
Click to expand...

When I just got into Maiden, I wasn't distracted as much by other music, or other forms of media, or other things in general. I didn't consume as much as I and (probably) you do now. It's not just the time one spends on an album, it's also the framework of other music that is set in the brain (or whatever part of the body ;-)

Even if I'd take the time for a record, I'd still have a staple of cd's behind and ahead of me. In other words: I find it a bit more difficult to appreciate music as fully as I did 20 years ago. I like more styles, more bands, but the love for any of these albums doesn't come close to the old encounters. It may be that this is the reason that I like recent Maiden less than older, but it's also that (imo) Maiden have more difficulties with staying fresh and original. So I think it's always the combination of the artist and the interpreter.
 
Its certainly true that back in the day when I first listened to Maiden I was searching for music that appealed to me and wasn't surrounded by a plethora of metal or much of anything besides classical music. So everything I heard by Maiden was fresh and new and exciting. Having said that though, when I first heard TFF (especially Isle of Avalon, TMWWBK, Starblind, WTWWB ) I was struck very much by fresh and new and exciting. But I understand where you're coming from.
 
Forostar said:
Flash, I am still not sure what you mean with avoiding in this context. Skipping? Ignoring? Putting your hands on your ears? :D

If The Fugitive is too basic, then many Maiden songs are too basic I'm afraid. As I've explained: The tempo is constant, but there's lots of other stuff changing. Can't hear the similarities you described. Stylewise perhaps, but not melody wise. If that's a big issue, I am sure this pops up way more often on other albums. I agree with Crimson: the songs on Fear of the Dark are very different from each other.
Click to expand...

Ignoring :D

I actually think that way. Iron Maiden has been my favorite band for four years now (I wasn't a music fan at all before getting into them, remember I was 12 then) But my taste has changed significantly. In first years I'd consider myself as a Heavy Metal Fan, now I consider myself as a Progressive Rock fan. With this change, my look at Iron Maiden's catalogue has also changed. The Trooper was one of my favorites for a long time, now it's my probably only 6th favorite off Piece of Mind. I tend to like progressive songs of the band a lot better than the short, basic ones.

Just took a look at my last Maiden standings :

1. Starblind
2. Rime of the Ancient Mariner
3. Paschendale
4. Seventh Son of a Seventh Son
5. To Tame a Land
6. Hallowed Be Thy Name
7. Alexander the Great
8. Infinite Dreams
9. Children of the Damned
10. The Prisoner
11. Powerslave
12. Phantom of the Opera
13. Brighter Than a Thousand Suns
14. Caught Somewhere in Time
15. Sea of Madness
16. The Duellists
17. Still Life
18. Flash of the Blade
19. The Evil That Men Do
20. Sign of the Cross

Just a few songs there are shorter than 5 minutes (Children of the Damned, Flash of the Blade, The Evil That Men Do, Still Life) and maybe the only song that can be considered basic there is The Evil That Men Do. I like it that much because of the harmonies and backing melodies on the verses.

If the melodies are so good on a basic song, fine, it can go up on my list. But The Fugitive's melodies don't do much for me.
 
Liking melodies is a very individual thing but what I find cool is that in The Fugitive there are more different segments (changes) than in Starblind and well... most of the others songs in the catalogie, no matter how long they are.
 
Forostar said:
Liking melodies is a very individual thing but what I find cool is that in The Fugitive there are more different segments (changes) than in Starblind and well... most of the others songs in the catalogie, no matter how long they are.
Click to expand...

No way. Starblind has more changes. Whole song screams creativity. 7 or 8 solo/licks, constantly changing guitars behind the verses, bluesy guitar on the chorus, lots of mood changes and stuff. I don't know if we are actually talking about the same song, The Fugitive has three different segment melodies. (not counting the solos) Intro, the bridge after the intro, the melody part which leads us to the verses. Three is not a big number if you're talking about Maiden catalogue.

Maiden is far from being a repetitive band and it's not very common in metal. Certain songs of them are indeed repetitive but it's not really a case of repetitive-or-not, it's a case of which songs are more creative.
 
The Flash said:
the bridge after the intro, the melody part which leads us to the verses.
Click to expand...

Alright, if we're doing it like this, then Starblind gets the same treatment: the intro leads us to the verses. And actually, it also leads us to the "Starblind..." part. All, one and the same part.

When Adrian plays different leads in Starblind, that's mostly on the same segment underneath. I am talking about the amount of different segments: different chord patterns or melodies, if they lack backing guitar chords. Each different one counts as one.

The Flash said:
(not counting the solos)
Click to expand...

Instrumental sections count in a song. You can't erase them, especially not when they are different. So when you want to count the amount of different moments in a song you need to count these as well. I'll count the whole thing out.

3 parts eh? Bear with me for a couple of minutes.

The Fugitive - Using
Unique pieces in the song:
1. 0.00-0.24
2. 0.24-0.36
3. 0.48-1.24
4. 1.24-1.45
5. 1.45-2.05
6. 2.47-3.08 (one could count 2 different ones in this piece)
7. 3.08-3.29
8. 3.29-3.39
9. 3.39-3.49
10. 3.49-3.59 (one could count 2 different ones in this piece)

Starblind - using
Unique pieces in the song:
1. 0.00-0.50
2. 0.50-0.59
3. 0.59-1.04
4. 1.04-2.10
5. 2.10-2.31 (one could count 2 different ones in this piece)
6. 4.05-4.43
7. 4.43-5.04 (one could count 2 different ones in this piece)
8. 5.04-5.46

This analysis doesn't prove which song is better, I am only showing there's more to this than meets the eye.
 
Ok so since you (Foro) keep going on about The Fugitive and how many changes there are in it, I decided to go back and have a listen because, just like The Flash, I don't recall The Fugitive being that interesting. So I went back and broke it down and here's what I got:

0-0:48: Intro (short bridge at 0:28 linking the multiple reiterations of the intro theme)
0:48-0:58 Bridge to verse
0:58-1:44 Verse (same chord progression as bridge to verse, sounds like about 6 different chords))
1:44-2:04 Chorus
2:04-2:26 Verse
2:26-2:46 Chorus
2:46-3:08 Solo
3:08-3:30 Bridge (same as intro just different orchestration, less drums)
3:30-3:38 Short bridge identical to bridge in intro
3:38-3:50 Lick (?)
3:50-3:58 Solo
3:58-4:20 Verse
4:20-4:40 Chorus
4:40-4:54 Outro (same as intro)

All told it sounds like there are about 4 distinct different elements (intro, bridge to verse (remember verse is the same melody and chord progression as this bridge), chorus, lick), everything else is a variation of one of these (while orchestration can make a big difference in how something sounds, if its the same chord progression and melody, it really doesn't count as something new and distinct) or a solo.

For comparison I went to Starblind, which was a whole other story primarily because its so difficult to actually hear whats going on with the individual guitars in the background. But here's my rough estimate of the various sections:

0-0:24 Intro
0:24-0:50 Verse (same chord progression as intro, vocal has similar melody to principal guitar)
0:50-1:04 Bridge
1:04-1:48 Verse (less acoustic orchestration but same as first verse)
1:48-2:10 Chorus 1 (guitar licks in the background ala Out of the Shadows)
2:10-2:32 Chorus 2 (guitar licks)
2:32-2:54 Solo
2:54-3:16 Verse (guitar licks)
3:16-3:38 Chorus 1 (guitar lick overhead throughout)
3:38-4:05 Chorus 2 (guitar licks)
4:05-4:15 Bridge to solo (same as first bridge)
4:15-4:43 Solo
4:43-4:53 Solo
4:53-5:04 Solo
5:04-5:46 Riff
5:46-6:10 Into progression with guitar lick over
6:10-6:32 Verse (guitar licks)
6:32-6:53 Chorus 1
6:53-7:48 Chorus 2 twice (guitar licks)

Here there are 5 distinctly different elements (intro (verse is the same as intro), bridge, chorus 1 (Starblind with sun etc), chorus 2 (whatever God you know etc), riff at 5:04). There may be some debate over chorus 1 and 2 but to my ears these are 2 separate melodies that both happen to be repeated in the same format throughout the song. So in terms of distinct different melodic and chord progression elements, Starblind does have more (but only one more). In terms of actual sections (so, changes) there are 14 in The Fugitive and 19 in Starblind. So yes there are more changes in Starblind as well. I think a contributing factor to The flash perceiving Starblind as a lot more varied than The Fugitive when it actually isn't melodically speaking, is that those bits that are frequently repeated vary in guitar lick happening on top of the vocals. So for example Chorus 1 from 3:16-3:38 has a very different lick than Chorus 1 from 6:32-6:53, and it is also a more extensive embellishment. Either way, yes Starblind has more changes, yes it has more different melodic elements, and honestly, listening to both over and over...Starblind just has more going on in it.

Feel free to critique and have input on my subdivisions of each song, but I think in terms of overall melodies and chord progressions (I'm not that bothered about solo's) its fairly accurate. To reiterate: Starblind is in fact, more complex melodically than The Fugitive (not by much, but still).

But just like Foro said, I'm not saying which is better. This is simply breaking both down to get the facts straight. :P
 
Did you see my post? I'd appreciate it if you'd check out my analysis as well, you can easily
play along the songs while reading it.

Natalie said:
...Starblind just has more going on in it.
Click to expand...

On top of it perhaps, because of the amount of solos. But underneath? In the backbone?
Inside? Beyond the solos?

Obviously I did this differently. You count each part with a different solo, lick and vocal (the Starlight.. part is on top of the same "ground"-music as the couplets before it) as a different part, while the music underneath is the same, whereas I go deeper to the root, and solely deduce the unique parts (so repetitions are not counted: two or three verses are counted as one unique segment), in other words, the bigger changes; the ones in chords/melody-patterns.

When I first was into Maiden I mostly listened to the solos but nowadays I find it at least as interesting to hear what's going on underneath or around it.

Natalie said:
To reiterate: Starblind is in fact, more complex melodically than The Fugitive (not by much, but still).
Click to expand...

It isn't. Most of the stuff in Starblind is done on long and repetitive patterns. Like this, the construction of the song becomes less complex when you keep repeating the same chord patterns. As counted, Starblind has less different segments while it's around three(!) minutes longer!

To play and sing this, that's an entirely different matter. The rhythms and the vocal melodies in Starblind are quite complex.
 
Forostar said:
Did you see my post? I'd appreciate it if you'd check out my analysis as well, you can easily play along the songs while reading it.

Obviously I did this differently. You count each part with a different solo or different vocal as a different part, while the chore of the music underneath is the same, whereas I go deeper to the root, the real differences in the platforms of the music: chords/melody changes.

When I first was into Maiden I mostly listened to the solos but nowadays I find it at least as interesting to hear what's going on underneath or around it.
Click to expand...

Yes I saw you post, I was working on mine while you posted that and I even edited mine to reflect what you had said at the end. But this is getting ridiculous. You imply I don't listen to chord progressions. Ok fine, I can play your game too. Here follows your post and my comments to each section. Apparently you don't hear chord progressions that well either because you put in 3 "distinctly different sections" where its the same chord progression as something already identified. So The Fugitive actually has 7 different chord progression bits as opposed to 10.
But I don't know anyone who breaks down songs by chord progression, its normal to do it by verse, chorus, bridge, instrumental section. Either way, by your rules or mine, Starblind is more complex anyway. We're done with this.

Forostar said:
The Fugitive
Unique pieces in the song:
1. 0.00-0.24
2. 0.24-0.36
3. 0.48-1.24 Bridge to verse which I state continues on into the verse so the verse doesn't count as different
4. 1.24-1.45 Hold the phone. This is the same chord progression as above, just a heavier sound.
5. 1.45-2.05
6. 2.47-3.08 (one could count 2 different ones in this piece) Oh you mean solo's.
7. 3.08-3.29 Same chord progression as section 1.
8. 3.29-3.39 Same chord progression as section 2.
9. 3.39-3.49
10. 3.49-3.59 (one could count 2 different ones in this piece)

Starblind
Unique pieces in the song:
1. 0.00-0.50
2. 0.50-0.59
3. 0.59-1.04
4. 1.04-2.10 1:48-2:10 has a different progression, 1:04-2:10 is the same as section 1.
5. 2.10-2.31 (one could count 2 different ones in this piece)
6. 4.05-4.43
7. 4.43-5.04 (one could count 2 different ones in this piece) I don't get what this means. But yes from 4:05-5:04 there are several solo's.
8. 5.04-5.46
Click to expand...
 
Natalie said:
We're done with this.
Click to expand...
I wasn't yet:

Natalie said:
I think a contributing factor to The flash perceiving Starblind as a lot more varied than The Fugitive when it actually isn't melodically speaking, is that those bits that are frequently repeated vary in guitar lick happening on top of the vocals. So for example Chorus 1 from 3:16-3:38 has a very different lick than Chorus 1 from 6:32-6:53, and it is also a more extensive embellishment.
Click to expand...

I noticed how that was perceived. It shows that there are several different licks on the song. But that doesn't make the song's construction more complex. If The Angel and the Gambler had 10 more solos or licks added on the very same chord scheme, it certainly wouldn't have made the song's construction more complex, would it?

But when another song has more unique chord patterns (in a way shorter amount of time), it can't be stated as a fact, that it has less different parts, or that its less complex.
 
Just a general reminder: Keep it civil people, please.
 
Hold the phone. So now you claim The Fugitive has more "unique chord patterns" than Starblind so it doesn't matter how many different parts there are anyway???? Screw this. You can't set up a paradigm and then shift it when it suits you. I was defining complex by "different melodic/chord progession" elements. We both dissected both songs. Its clear whichever way you cut it that Starblind has more different melodic/chord progression elements. So by the old definition IT IS MORE COMPLEX. Not better, just more complex. I don't understand how you want to argue this by then shifting the definition to something that is completely subjective. Sure you can argue all day long about whether The Fugitive is better than Starblind. But you can't argue all day long that The Fugitive is more complex than Starblind when you choose a definition that makes sense and is objective (we both can count its not that hard), and its clear by COUNTING that Starblind is in fact, MORE COMPLEX. Its not debatable any more. We both went through and did it. Now you want to argue about its complexity using a paradigm that is in fact SUBJECTIVE (more unique chord patterns, I mean, define unique to begin with). And I say no. I am not arguing with you about it any more because OBJECTIVELY this has been decided. You are entitled to your opinion. But when its comes to complexity and everyone has subscribed to a definition of that (you included) and the answer has been OBJECTIVELY determined, then that IS THE ANSWER. End of story. Starblind is more complex. Argue away about which one is better. Argue away about obscure "unique chord patterns". But I didn't just waste 2 hours of my life determining in a scientific manner that Starblind is indeed more complex just for you to change the paradigm when it suits you.

I know you hate to hear this but YOU ARE WRONG. STARBLIND IS MORE COMPLEX THAN THE FUGITIVE.

Done.
 
Natalie:

The Fugitive
Unique pieces in the song:
1. 0.00-0.24
2. 0.24-0.36
3. 0.48-1.24 Bridge to verse which I state continues on into the verse so the verse doesn't count as different

Alright.

4. 1.24-1.45 Hold the phone. This is the same chord progression as above, just a heavier sound.
Yes so, we can either delete 3 or 4, you may choose. But then section 1 in Starblind should be deleted as well (intro continues into the verse, or did I also hear that wrong?).

5. 1.45-2.05
6. 2.47-3.08 (one could count 2 different ones in this piece) Oh you mean solo's.
No, one could see this as 2 different chord progressions (one the modulation of the other). Each repeated twice. But let's not do it to make it less complicated.

7. 3.08-3.29 Same chord progression as section 1.
8. 3.29-3.39 Same chord progression as section 2.
You're correct. Never noticed that!

9. 3.39-3.49
10. 3.49-3.59 (one could count 2 different ones in this piece).

Looks like I made mistakes here. :oops:

7 is the number.

Would you show me the different progressions in Starblind's 4:
1.04-2.10 1:48-2:10

I am sorry if I have annoyed with my continuous editing. Very confusing indeed. I need to be careful with that.
 
Forostar said:
Unique pieces in the song:
1. 0.00-0.24
2. 0.24-0.36
3. 0.48-1.24
Click to expand...

In all fairness.. I was listening along while reading the breakdown and stopped looking at the breakdown once I realised that parts 1 & 3 are identical, yet you had said you "don't count repetition". Not to mention its reuses later on :P
 
Right, I suggest everyone walk away from this thread for tonight and calm down. The thread will still be here tomorrow, no use at getting worked up about such insignificant nitpickery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top