Question about NO PRAYER album

Perun --there's only the two of them arguing.

But it is, indeed, utter nitpickery (--not a word, I don't think). Couple of pendants! Especially that Forostar one! :p
 
Perun said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a good idea. The world won't end in 2012, and so won't this thread. :eek:
I'll start the count again some other day, with the help of Nat's (already given) corrections.
 
Forostar said:
1. 0.00-0.24
Click to expand...
I would hope that the intro would be unique!
2. 0.24-0.36
Click to expand...
Yes this is unique.
3. 0.48-1.24
Click to expand...
Is the exact same as the last one you mentioned. Just different picking style. How creative!
4. 1.24-1.45
Click to expand...
Same chords as before, dunno what is so unique about that.
5. 1.45-2.05
Click to expand...
OK
6. 2.47-3.08 (one could count 2 different ones in this piece)
Click to expand...
Same chords as the intro, played in a different rhythm.
7. 3.08-3.29
Click to expand...
Same as above.
8. 3.29-3.39
Click to expand...
Is the same as 0.24-0.36
9. 3.39-3.49
Click to expand...
Is the only good thing about that song.
10. 3.49-3.59 (one could count 2 different ones in this piece)
Click to expand...
Sure.

So now we have 5 unique parts. I'll play fair and look at starblind as well. I will even follow along with sheet music, to be 100% sure! (I did this with Fugtive too but a tad less

1. 0.00-0.50
Click to expand...
Correct.
2. 0.50-0.59
Click to expand...
Also true.
3. 0.59-1.04
Click to expand...
Yes.
4. 1.04-2.10
Click to expand...
5. 2.10-2.31 (one could count 2 different ones in this piece)
Click to expand...
Almost correct, it is two different ones: 2.10-2.21 and 2.21-2.31. Surely a key change must count!
6. 4.05-4.43
Click to expand...
Yes
7. 4.43-5.04 (one could count 2 different ones in this piece)
Click to expand...
Right.
8. 5.04-5.46
Click to expand...
Right again.

So you were close here, and we have 9 unique parts, in comparison to Fugitive's 5. And of course if you want to look beneath the structure, and what is going on in those parts, such as added harmonies etc etc there is even more going on in Starblind. Fugitive is just a simple filler on a mediocre album, with standard rock changes. Deal with it.
 
The Flash said:
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.
Click to expand...

Without sounding to strange, I feel like I just read my own post. Iron Maiden has been my favorite band since I was 8 (17 now) any way my favorite song was always The Trooper. Just a few days ago I had the discussion with my father that The Trooper is now one if my least favorite on the album (which made him a bit upset) and I now much preferred Revelations and To Tame a Land. When I was younger I also considered myself a metal fan but now lean towards progressive bands and my top 20 is quite similar to yours.
I feel like Maiden is portrayed as a heavy metal band so you immediately assume thats what you like, but you eventually realize that they dont really fit a genre and progressive is really the only way to categorize them.
 
I actually really like No Prayer, and I thought stripping down the sound was the next logical step after Seventh Son. They couldn't remake SSOASS forever. They were at a crossroads. They could either go all Power Windows on us or they could give us what they did.
 
Just to add to this "complexity" discussion...

If a song like THE FUGITIVE does qualify as being "complex" with a variety of distinctive parts,
then some of the material from the band's first (legitimately raw sounding and stripped-down, not contrived) album
such as PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, or PROWLER, or even CHARLOTTE THE HARLOT, etc.,
must be considered borderline "Symphonic Prog Fusion".

:edmetal:
 
Since Mosh is the only one, as far I see, to have bothered actually getting a music book out (--this would have saved us all this mind numbing analysis days ago!) --I think I'll side firmly with his analysis.
 
I think Natalie was more correct in correcting my analysis of The Fugitive (on the previous page of this thread) so I rather stick with that one:

The Fugitive
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.
4. 1.45-2.05
5. 2.47-3.08 (one could count 2 different ones in this piece) Oh you mean solo's. (includes key change)
7. 3.08-3.29 Same chord progression as section 1.
8. 3.29-3.39 Same chord progression as section 2.
6. 3.39-3.49
7. 3.49-3.59 (one could count 2 different ones in this piece) (includes key change)

The Fugitive's score is 7 and if we count key changes (in 5 and in 7) than 9.

I'll get into Starblind later.
 
Wow looks like I've started a big debate and just ran away ! :D

@ Foro

First off, The Fugitive's changes doesn't feel connected. The transition of the song to the solo parts are awful, feels like the whole song has changed and it's not one of the cases where this is actually a good thing. (listening to Battery by Metallica as I'm writing, there's a great example of that on this song)

Secondly, I did not say I wasn't counting the solos at all, I said that particular thing just for the point I was trying to make, let's not shift the statements.

Now onto the songs (I'll count everything that can be considered as a boost to the complexity) :

The Fugitive

1. 00:00-0:24
2. 0:24-0:36
3. 1:45-2:05 (that part sounds almost exactly the same to the main melody but I'll count it anyway)
4. 2:47-3:08 - solo (different backing part but with a horrible transition)
5. 3:39-3:49
6. 3:49-3:59 - solo (different backing part with another horrible transition)

Starblind

1. 00:00-00:50
2. 00:50-01:02
3. 01:02-01:48
4. 02:00-02:10 - lead
5. 02:10-02:26 - lead
6. 02:26-02:53
7. 03:05-03:15 - lead
8. 03:15-03:26 - lead
9. 03:26-03:37 - lead
10. 04:06-04:43
11. 04:43-05:02
12. 05:02-05:40 (one of the greatest transitions I've ever heard)
13. 05:46-06:06 - lead
14. 06:09-06:09

14 to 6. If you're just counting the significant changes, it's still 8 or 9-5 to Starblind. Look up for the tabs of those songs, even if you don't play any instrument, it might help you figure out the whole complexity thing.

The Fugitive's transitions and key changes sound strained. Doesn't flow. But on the other hand, Starblind's changes are incredibly fluent.

And also, The Fugitive's melodies are highly basic as I've said earlier. Only two parts on that song are special sounding and those two parts make the song average for me, instead of bad. Simple as said.
 
Flash, I appreciate the work you put in your post. But since I and a few others have explained that (or why) we like this song, and since you and a few others explained that (or why) this is a shit song, I do not wish to continue with this for now. Maybe in a few months. ;-P
So for now I will happily strip all your nicely expressed opinions from your analysis and try to keep this as neutral as possible. ;-)

However, forgive me for remaining autistic when it comes to the counting. I started with it, and I want to do it well, especially since I made mistakes. Naturally, before continuing this, I will read the analyses by other people.

Question
Could you explain to me why in The Fugitive you don't count: 0.48-1.24 (part 3 in my previous post)
I might have misunderstood Nat's and/or Mosh's comment(s), so if you or someone else will elaborate on it, thanks in advance. :ok:
 
Starblind
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) (includes key change)
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. (includes key change)
8. 5.04-5.46

Look, I honestly don't hear that different progression, mentioned by Natalie in 4 in bold letters. The chords seem to go the same as in the couplets preceding it.

If I don't count it as a different progression it's like this:
Starblind's score is 7 and if we count key changes (in 5 and in 7) than 9 (same score as The Fugitive).

If I do count it as a different progression it's like this:
Starblind's score is 8 and if we count key changes (in 5 and in 7) than 10 (one more unique segment than The Fugitive).
 
I made my reply already, I started replying again and felt like I was repeating myself, so I'm not going to bother anymore. I don't even know how Starblind and Fugitive became apart of this. I mean, is it really worth this much effort to prove that some song from the 90's that Maiden themselves probably forgot about has more parts than Starblind? So pointless.
 
Mosh said:
I made my reply already, I started replying again and felt like I was repeating myself, so I'm not going to bother anymore. I don't even know how Starblind and Fugitive became apart of this. I mean, is it really worth this much effort to prove that some song from the 90's that Maiden themselves probably forgot about has more parts than Starblind? So pointless.
Click to expand...

I called almost every song on FOTD full of crap, Foro disagreed and said The Fugitive was good, I listed my favorite songs where Starblind is the number 1 and here we go.

I totally agree with you, though.
 
I've been watching this thread for some time, I truly like NPFtD. I think it's a great record with a few stinkers here and there, but hey; the songs that I like on NPFtD out number the ones that I don't like.
 
Mosh said:
I made my reply already, I started replying again and felt like I was repeating myself, so I'm not going to bother anymore. I don't even know how Starblind and Fugitive became apart of this. I mean, is it really worth this much effort to prove that some song from the 90's that Maiden themselves probably forgot about has more parts than Starblind? So pointless.
Click to expand...

If I were not to pay attention to all the songs Maiden have forgotten about... hah! That would be something. Fascination for the forgotten gems, that´s one of my the biggest passions. It took long, but I was not the only one involved in the discussion. If someone wishes to (and can) answer my question that I asked two posts ago, or if someone thinks I made a mistake, I am always curious to know.

For now, back on topic. Have you seen this revealing interview with Dave and Nicko on the Iron Maiden Commentary, from November 1990? Didn't read it before and I thought it was interesting. They talk about Adrian, and how the band confronted him with A.S.a.P:
http://www.ironmaidencommentary.com/?url=album08_npftd/interviews08_npftd&lang=eng&link=albums#interview5
 
Forostar, for what it's worth (& I really, really, can't be bothered reading all the posts you both made; there were far too many), I sort of agree with you. However, music analysis wise, this argument is all over the place. Key changes; solos; this & that progression; without touching on The Fugitive (where I think, Forostar, you have more of a point than you're being given credit for) --Starblind is nowhere near as complicated as you guys are making out.


In one of Natalie's very earliest posts she sums of the problem with this entire discussion; namely, neither of you seem clear of what exactly you're arguing about. "Parts", "sections", "progressions"; etc etc. Natalie breaks Starblind down into 19 seperate elements (how far are you guys going to take this: every chord change?) --then states that it has 5 (yes 5! --19, then 5!) "distinctly different elements"; read "sections". To me, this is correct: at a structural level, Starblind basically has 5 sections. The discussion should have ended there. How more uncomplicated a song do you want to analyse?

If this is your analysis Forostar (that it's not that complicated) --then I'd agree.
 
I agree that Starblind's structure is not complicated for a song of such length. Lots of lengthy parts that are repeated often (I recognize more than 5 unique parts though). However, it has some stunning melodies, vocals and lyrics; these are absolutely the main strengths.
 
"Unique parts" --there is literally no point in discussing music if we're going to use this kind of terminology. Where does this start and finish? There are no boundaries to this terminology.

Solos etc are improvised sections over a basic/repetitive structure. These are all "unique", but have nothing to do with song structure. Little bridge sections, which effectively "introduce" a new section, are not separate structural sections (they are little "unique parts", or course) of a given song. So, 0:50 - 0:59 in Starblind introduces the main section of the entire composition; which, in itself, is derivative of the "intro" (0:00 - 0:50). Up until 2:10 there is, at most, two structural elements; the second simply a different expression of the first. And, other than the middle section (4:05 - 5:46) of Starblind (where I believe there are only 3 distinct sections) --the rest of the song is repetition of earlier structural elements.

It is indeed a great track & the sections flow together in a way they certainly do not in The Fugitive. But, like you, I don't think the latter is some pissy album filler with no structure worthy of analysis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top