Simon Dawson is the new drummer

You have to consider that certain tours have more songs on them because the set was made out of shorter songs. Half of the songs in TFP were almost 10 minutes long.
 
07-SMS:A1L said:
If you prefer hearing the songs as they were originally recorded, then you must dislike Nicko playing Clive’s parts.
Click to expand...
The situations are different and ofc every drummer will bring something of their own style/feel to the playing. People want a good job while staying fairly true to the original recording. I assume.
BludBrutha said:
Yup.
Clive had better drum tone as well.
Click to expand...
I like them both, Nicko a little more probably, but Clive's style was perfect for some songs. Better drum tone? I can't say. Clive's distinctive. I love Nicko's.
 
harrisdevot said:
I'm 100 % sure he has already done everything, with Rod's help, to make sure that nothing could happen without him. Should he disappear all of a sudden, I'm sure we would get a statement saying this is it for Maiden. And this would be the only thing to do, just like with Motörhead. Just thinking of a Thin Lizzy-like situation makes me sick.
Click to expand...

It seems likely and I agree that Harris would do everything that nothing would go on without him. But this doesn't mean it's the beautiful thing to do. A band is a group of people, or Harris should call it Steve Harris and in a perfect world a band should be able to continue should anyone disappears. I know, it rarely happens but still.
You cannot compare Motörhead with Maiden, like it or not Harris is not the front man. And what's wrong with Thin Lizzy? They even haven't released an album without Lynott. (I wish they would)
Things evolve, bands are greater than their members. I liked that Doors continued for 2 albums without Morrison; it was hugely unsuccessful and they disbanded. But they did try. Fleetwood Mac success hit the stratosphere after Peter Green left. Do I like them post Green? Not really. But I like evolution.

In all, I wouldn't mind even a Motörhead without Lemmy, let alone a Maiden without Haris. As in nature, let the market decide let's not try to confine and control everything, like it or not, Maiden wouldn't even exist today, or it would have been reduced to obscurity, if Bruce and Adrian hadn't return in 1999. So if Harris decides he's tired but the others want to go on, it would be a small mind & dick move to stop them. Or even worst, he dies and they can't continue.
 
____no5 said:
It seems likely and I agree that Harris would do everything that nothing would go on without him. But this doesn't mean it's the beautiful thing to do. A band is a group of people, or Harris should call it Steve Harris and in a perfect world a band should be able to continue should anyone disappears. I know, it rarely happens but still.
You cannot compare Motörhead with Maiden, like it or not Harris is not the front man. And what's wrong with Thin Lizzy? They even haven't released an album without Lynott. (I wish they would)
Things evolve, bands are greater than their members. I liked that Doors continued for 2 albums without Morrison; it was hugely unsuccessful and they disbanded. But they did try. Fleetwood Mac success hit the stratosphere after Peter Green left. Do I like them post Green? Not really. But I like evolution.

In all, I wouldn't mind even a Motörhead without Lemmy, let alone a Maiden without Haris. As in nature, let the market decide let's not try to confine and control everything, like it or not, Maiden wouldn't even exist today, or it would have been reduced to obscurity, if Bruce and Adrian hadn't return in 1999. So if Harris decides he's tired but the others want to go on, it would be a small mind & dick move to stop them. Or even worst, he dies and they can't continue.
Click to expand...
Thin Lizzy without Lynott isn't Thin Lizzy.
Motörhead without Lemmy isn't Motörhead.
Maiden without Steve isn't Maiden.
 
I genuinely believe everyone in Maiden is replaceable to a degree, except Steve. Maiden continued without Adrian and Bruce. They will continue without Nicko. I'm sure they'd continue without Dave or Janick too.

But Steve? He is Maiden. There's no continuing without him.

Edit: fixed a typo, I meant "without" Adrian and Bruce.
 
Last edited:
This was true until 1999, but is true no more. Songs like Brave New World, Dance of Death, Book of Souls, Brighter than 1000 Suns, Empire of the Clouds, Paschendale, Darkest Hour, Days of Future Past, Writing on the Wall etc., showcase that Steve is not a necessary requirement for Maiden to exist. There is some Harris contribution on paper for some of the above or in lyrics department. Surely Bruce could write a lyrically better Paschendale, Book of Souls or Dance of Death.

And I wouldn't mind at all another Accident of Birth or Chemical Wedding under Iron Maiden label.

*Edit. I excluded classics such as Flight of Icarus, Powerslave, Wasted Years etc as I don't believe that back then there could be an album as strong as Powerslave or anything in the 80s without Harris. But Brave New World? Dance of Death? Final Frontier? Book of Souls? I think yes.
 
Last edited:
Vaenyr said:
I genuinely believe everyone in Maiden is replaceable to a degree, except Steve. Maiden continued without Adrian and Bruce. They will continue without Nicko. I'm sure they'd continue without Dave or Janick too.

But Steve? He is Maiden. There's no continuing without him.

Edit: fixed a typo, I meant "without" Adrian and Bruce.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on what we're talking about here.

Maiden continuing as a live entity? Possible to replace everyone, including Steve. Never happen, though. When Steve's done, I imagine he's folding up the tents for everyone involved.

Maiden doing more albums with no original members (or even minus Steve)? No. Steve's the primary songwriter, he's the cornerstone of the Maiden sound. Sure they could, but that would be where Maiden stops being Maiden, IMO.
 
____no5 said:
This was true until 1999, but is true no more. Songs like Brave New World, Dance of Death, Book of Souls, Brighter than 1000 Suns, Empire of the Clouds, Paschendale, Darkest Hour, Days of Future Past, Writing on the Wall etc., showcase that Steve is not a necessary requirement for Maiden to exist. There is some Harris contribution on paper for some of the above or in lyrics department. Surely Bruce could write a lyrically better Paschendale, Book of Souls or Dance of Death.

And I wouldn't mind at all another Accident of Birth or Chemical Wedding under Iron Maiden label.

*Edit. I excluded classics such as Flight of Icarus, Powerslave, Wasted Years etc as I don't believe that back then there could be an album as strong as Powerslave or anything in the 80s without Harris. But Brave New World? Dance of Death? Final Frontier? Book of Souls? I think yes.
Click to expand...
Writing credit or not, every single song, arrangement, and lyric goes through Steve’s approval whether he wrote it or not. So no, Iron Maiden without Steve is like Danzig without Glenn Danzig.
 
It's just a legal problem guys, not an essential problem this is what I'm trying to say. After 40 years of those guys playing together do you really believe they need Harris to adult supervise them? Com'on.
Steve holds the grip tightly but this doesn't mean they can't do it without him. They've proven they can time and time again.

chaosapiant said:
Writing credit or not, every single song, arrangement, and lyric goes through Steve’s approval whether he wrote it or not. So no, Iron Maiden without Steve is like Danzig without Glenn Danzig.
Click to expand...

And so what? Once he's gone it will go through someone else's or collective approval. Bruce or Adrian or both could do that. And no, the Danzig example is not valid no less since Steve hasn't put his name on it.

Again, I don't claim it's very possible to happen. I know it probably won't. But I don't see why it couldn't /shouldn't happen. There's a big difference there and sad if anyone thinks otherwise.

Pink Floyd thrived after Barrett left and survived after Waters left because there were no legal barriers. I don't buy for a second that Maiden wouldn't survive Harris or not being capable of releasing very good records without him, if the latter allowed it.
 
____no5 said:
It's just a legal problem guys, not an essential problem this is what I'm trying to say. After 40 years of those guys playing together do you really believe they need Harris to adult supervise them? Com'on.
Steve holds the grip tightly but this doesn't mean they can't do it without him. They've proven they can time and time again.



And so what? Once he's gone it will go through someone else's or collective approval. Bruce or Adrian or both could do that. And no, the Danzig example is not valid no less since Steve hasn't put his name on it.

Again, I don't claim it's very possible to happen. I know it probably won't. But I don't see why it couldn't /shouldn't happen. There's a big difference there and sad if anyone thinks otherwise.

Pink Floyd thrived after Barrett left and survived after Waters left because there were no legal barriers. I don't buy for a second that Maiden wouldn't survive Harris or not being capable of releasing very good records without him, if the latter allowed it.
Click to expand...
No Steve no Maiden, simple.

No point even discussing it as we’re never gonna an incarnation of the band without Steve.

I think if Steve says he’s ready to hang up Maiden for good the rest of the band would respect him enough to just agree. I could never see anyone saying “well I want to carry on so bye Steve and anyone else who wants to go with him and the rest of us will just hire new people and carry on”.

I’d also wager that the way the contracts in the band are set up that Steve has more power and sway over all the others about the direction of the band and ownership of the name.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top